James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 0 of 34
1 Page 0 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 1 of 34
2 James Field 2nd October 2012 This document should be reproduced in colour, any black & white copying will be 3 misconstrued, & deemed tampering with ‘Evidence’. It represents that delivered to the Planning Inspectorate 29th June 2012
4 Rights of Way Section Modification Order Inquiry Madgelake Hall , Uffculme [Handed in on 3rd October 2012] 5 Planning Inspectorate 6 Temple Quay House This document contains both minor changes, & additions inclusive of legal maxims and 7 2 The Square precedence, to improve, & further the reader’s ability to comprehend the document & the 8 Bristol beneficial information contained within regarding inquiry fixing and public office fraud. 9 BS1 6PN
10 With reference to the Devon Green Lanes Schedule 14 Application FPS/J1155/7/98 : [NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90] made 11 3rd July 2008, to add a further footpath across Five Fords Farm, Uffculme. This current Modification Order involves the same 12 location and people, and evidence relied on as that used during expropriation of Violet Lane during two sham Public 13 Inquiries: 18th Sept 2007, and 15th July 2008. Shifting the front two players does not remove the criminal accountability of 14 those lying low.
15 This document represents an overview of my objection to the continued unwarranted interference at Five Fords Uffculme, 16 and by extension, the Brookshill to Prescott Path, and that area of Five Fords Farm in the vicinity of Brookshill to Ratsash 17 Lane. It does not amount to every angle, very little history research evidence is intended to be provided. This is due to the 18 fraudulent nature and ineptness of DEFRA’s Inspector Mr Peter Millman, being supported by DEFRA during their primary 19 response and ‘strike out claim’ of 7th August 2009, re Bath County Court re James Field v. S of S DEFRA Claim No 9BA00769
20 I agree with Mr Coombs’s perception, within his Schedule 14 Application, that Uffculme Parish Council (UPC) have shown 21 irregularities and bad faith, certainly the appearance of Mr Welland’s circa thirty (c30) years contempt and misfeasance in 22 public office1; it appears the reason why he took office as of January 1979, & why Mr Gollop’s letter of 18th July 2007 holds 23 only half true2, therefore what we must do, is not lose sight of what came before the illicitly contrived Violet Lane Order 24 FPS/J1155/7/59, and the malicious Schedule 14 Application made by the Front players of the Devon Green Lanes Group.
25 But I object to people interfering with my own rights using illegal means, today’s inquiry clearly demonstrated fraud; the 26 highlighting of the Finance Act 1910 map, caught my attention when I saw the file, as did the argue and agreed, appear to 27 disagree, because I have read all3 the Parish Minutes of Uffculme, and digitally transcribed the entries for PROWs & leisure 28 in MS ‘Word’ format. This allows fast search, and pattern—spotting, particularly the transition to stealth c mid/late 1970s.
29 Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea: (3 Inst. 107.)—The act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty 4 30 intent.5/100 31 Regina v. Exall (1866) 4 F & F 922; Pollock CB; Evidence 32 Circumstantial evidence might be compared to a rope comprised of several cords: "One strand of the cord might be insufficient to sustain 33 the weight, but three stranded together may be quite of sufficient strength. Thus it may be in circumstantial evidence - there may be a 34 combination of circumstances, no one of which would raise a reasonable conviction, or more than a mere suspicion: but the whole taken 35 together, may create a strong conclusion of guilt, that is, with as much certainty as human affairs can require or admit of."
36 Omnia præsumuntur contra spoliatorem : (Branch. Max. 80.)—All things are presumed against a wrongdoer.64/100 37 It is within the constitution of democracy that we are entitled to the principles of natural justice when our corporeal and 38 incorporeal rights are affected by the state. Therefore, there’re the events of people coming together in what we can identify 39 to be lawful & unlawful conspiracy. The coming together of User Groups leisure industry, & new statutes through the 1980s 40 and beyond 2000, regulating the countryside has instigated oppressive political―unlawful tactics (unscrupulous means).
1 Rex v. Wyat (1705) 1 Salk 380; Farrington v. Thomson and Bridgland [1959] VR 286; R v. Dytham [1979] Q.B. 722 (Shaw LJ, Lord Widgery CJ); Regina v. Bowden (Terence) [1996] 1 WLR 98; [1995] 4 All ER 505; 93/6974/X2; Elliott v. Chief Constable of Wiltshire and Others [1996] TLR 693; Three Rivers District Council and Others v. Governor and Company of The Bank of England (No 3) [2000] UKHL 331 [2000] 2 WLR 1220 [2000] 3 All ER 1 [2003] 2 AC 1; David Stanley Docker ‘2’ from 1998. Darker (Personal Representative of David Stanley Docker (Deceased) and Others (Formerly Head and Others) v. Chief Constable of The West Midlands Police [2000] UKHL 44 [2000] 3 WLR 747 [2001] AC 435 Gazette, 2000-08-17 Times, 2000-08-01 HL 2000-08-01; Karagozlu v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2006] EWCA Civ 1691 Times, 2006-12-26 [2007] 1 WLR 1881. 2 Regina v. Lydon (1987) 85 Cr App R 221; A gun and two scraps of paper (saying "Sean rules")… Not limited to Mr Gollop’s c15 recorded years of significant participation in Parish Council affairs particular to PROWs during the 1980s and 1990s and shadowing Mr Welland the Parish Clerk since 1996. See page 6 of the Devon C C PROW Committee, 9 page report EEC/08/273/HQ 10th Nov 2008 3 The Parish Clerk, Mr Francis Welland’s holds all but two of the early Minutes books, the monthly books 1894-1916, & 1916-1928 DRO. 4 George Frederick Wharton’s (Attorney-at Law) 1865, Legal Maxims Parts I & II provide invaluable insight to common law authorities.
Page 1 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 2 of 34
41 Cuilibet in suâ arte perito est credendum : (Co. Litt. 125.)—Whosoever is skilled in his profession is to be believed.23/100 42 But where do Cllr/ 5Mrs J Rudge [Morchard Bishop Parish Council] and Mr R.E. Coombs fit in amongst the hub & spokes of 43 cartwheel conspiracy at Uffculme? ― That is the question! They are not from, or members of the Culm Valley community.
44 1Mrs J Rudge & 2Mr R Coombs’s agenda for at least the last decade has involved Uffculme, their significant interaction with 45 3Mrs E Spurway of Devon CC [taking over from Mr R Spurway recorded in the P-Minutes 1993-2002] and 4Mrs J Parsons of 46 the ‘Pony Club’ & the British Horse Society (BHS) working in conspiracy to defraud in Uffculme during the 1990s is well 47 documented. Collectively I identify them as the Travelling-forum due to their association & participation in issues re the 48 Countryside & Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 inclusive of ‘local access forums’. — Inquiry rigging6 is a criminal act.
49 Maybe Mr Coombs, as indeed it appears are many of those identified within this document, has it pigeonholed within his 50 mind that fraudulent conduct, bullying and procedural impropriety, notably plagiarism (cheating) and interfering with due 51 process & Inquiry rigging is a legal remedy for adding further public rights of way to the Definitive Map. If only the errors of 52 Mr Coombs and those in joint venture, could be said, to have been made faithfully. The Travelling-forum and their criminal 53 associates at the Planning Inspectorate have made the Definitive Map a folly.
54 Having worked successfully together with UPC during the Cripple Lane event c2002-3, they continued with the bad faith, 55 appropriation and conspiracy to defraud Violet Lane from Five Fords Farm, events had been ongoing since time immemorial; 56 it was also the desire by many, unconnected with the farm, prior to the Violet Lane sham Inquiries, to reinstate the Old Dairy 57 Path as a public footpath. But Mr Coombs’s anger & desire*, during the Violet Lane Expropriation is not a legitimate reason 58 to continue this deceitful conduct. [*Savile v. Roberts (1699) 1 Ld Raym 374. applicable due to the unlawful conspiracy existing.]
59 It was quite clear that Mr Coombs’s inept understanding of Tithe and Finance Acts documents as evidence during public 60 inquiries7 appears to emanate from his obsessive desire to achieve access over the property of others, and not seek (hear) the 61 truth. He demonstrated this ignorance during the expropriation of Cripple Lane, and appears to have thought the same 62 techniques of dogmatism could be used at Five Fords where his fellow conspirators had since the early 1980s8, been working 63 to achieve every conceivable access into & out of the area now known as Hunkin Wood — that was formed in the late 90s.
64 They are not parishioners of Uffculme, nor do they have, or shown any legitimate interest in any of that estate known locally 65 as Five Fords Farm [Bar that part now within Hunkin Wood (1887 O.S. 104 of 0.434 acres) although they are ignorant of the 66 facts re the history of the area.]. Nor have Mrs J Parsons & Mrs E Spurway any legal interest other than that afore-bracketed. 67 Messrs Welland, Gollop and Hilson have also illustrated themselves quite ignorant of Uffculme’s history & moral values; but 68 they were more than willing to take the crooks of the Travelling-forum on board during the stealthy conspiracy to defraud.
69 From the intrinsic facts, so far; and I have seen many, Mr Coombs has not provided any credible contribution9 of evidence, 70 or the understanding10 of, to warrant his meddling with the peaceful lives of others, ditto Mrs Rudge. I find it unacceptable 71 that their malicious11 interference with our lives has been wholeheartedly endorsed by Uffculme Parish Council (UPC), 72 Devon CC, and DEFRA and their departments such as the Planning Inspectorate. But the facts clearly portray hand in hand 73 underhand abuses of procedural process and violation of our democratic rights that we commonly refer to as ‘the principles 74 of natural justice’. All my challenges were shown contempt; Mr Coombs’s desire for costs at the end of the day on 15th July 75 2008 was clearly directed at me. But why? ― Prevarication! ― to which he is ‘an intrinsic cog in the works’ of a complex 76 conspiracy, thus accountable. It is for the public to know. Cockburn CJ: Campbell v. Spottiswoode (1863) 3 B & S 769
5 [Amended for clarity; following ‘point raised at Madgelake’ 3rd Oct 2012. As P3 co-ordinator she is an official of the Parish Council] 6 A trick, a scheme, a dodge; a method of cheating or swindling. Manage or manipulate in an underhand or fraudulent manner. Sophistry. 7 Not limited to Uffculme & Culmstock, it is cogently recorded that the sophistry & skulduggery to affront truth from being heard at is rife. 8 The reader is reminded that conspiracy in PROW matters that require acquiescence i.e. ‘the passage of time’ such as ‘20 years’ are prone to involve stealth; acquiescence is a two edged pointed sword. In UPC’s stealth with DCC & others, in Drawing the sword by the blade— 9 Regina v. Beresford (1971) 56 Cr App R 1431971 CACD; Sachs LJ having stirred the fire, they have cut & burnt themselves. When asked whether the appellate courts in England and Wales should entertain additional evidence under the section, which required the court to be satisfied that there was a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce it: "The court has in general to be satisfied that the evidence could not with reasonable diligence have been obtained for use at the trial." Criminal Appeal Act 1968 23((2)(b) 10 Farmer v. HM Advocate 1991 SCCR 986; Criminal Practice, Scotland The judge warned the jury of the dangers in assessing evidence: "The task of assessment is not an easy one: it is certainly one which has to be approached with great care and circumspection." 11 Mogul Steamship Company Limited v. McGregor Gow & Co (1888) 20 QBD 544 ~ and ~ (1889) 23 QBD 598 "[M]alicious" was not to be given its ordinary meaning (malice in fact), but rather a technical legal meaning (malice in law), meaning an intention to carry out an act that was wrongful in order to damage another or to the detriment of another, or to hurt another.
Page 2 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 3 of 34
77 Sophistry: Malum non præsumitur : (4 Co. 72.)—Evil is not presumed.413/800 —Their dogmatism, and plagiarism from sitting 78 at the same table and pooling ideas of trickery, then presenting them as individual submissions to increase the appearance of 79 credibility & strength of argument becomes more provocative to any innocent defending party during a show trial before 80 someone bias to their (Spurway, Parsons, Rudge & Coombs) cause like DEFRA’s ‘knight of the post’ Mr Peter Millman, 81 their prevaricatory tactics may work within the quasi courts of DEFRA; they would not work before an upright judiciary.
82 Certum est quod certum reddi potest : (9 Co. 47.)—That is certain which is able to be rendered certain.16/100 83 Collusion within ‘proofs of evidence’ is often easy to find when given opportunity to compare. But when DEFRA endorse 84 the rigging of Public Inquiries, so that they are no more than a humiliating show trial/sham; if the bad faith & buffoonery is 85 counter to the public interest & natural justice, expect exposure. ‘Lucas Box’ evidence available re Mrs E Spurway bad faith: 86 Regina v. Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston [1986] 2 All ER 941. — When a challenge is made in court to a decision of 87 a public authority, there is an obligation on a respondent public authority to put before the Court the material necessary to deal with the 88 relevant issues; “all the cards” should be “face upwards on the table”. 89 Cur omnium fit culpa, paucorum scelus? : why should the wickedness of a few be laid to the account of all? 90 It is wholly inconceivable that Mr Coombs and Mrs Rudge represent the honest majority of any User Group, be they TRF, 91 DGLG, Ramblers Association, ‘The Byways and Bridleways Trust’ or any other etc. The same innocence applies to the 92 majority of those working, paid or unpaid, within council or government offices; however, undue influence12 may dominate.
93 It is quite clear that the communications from the various departments contained within the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol 94 (PIB) at Temple Quay House and Devon County Council, illustrate & record a notable mental block (their obliviousness) to 95 the prevarication taking place; for one reason or another, be it jobbery, entryism, fear of losing their job, ignorance, or 96 because they are contracted (employed) to obstruct any defending parties entitlement to fair dealing. There appears a blatant 97 policy of lies from DEFRA’s departments that is bias to achieving procurement. In a democracy, truth & trust is mandatory 98 to achieving any legitimate expectation of natural justice. The primary difficulty lies with the hypocrisy & corruption lying 99 within the S of S’s office, you cannot get beyond the oppressive bias from within the (hypothetical) crenellated walls.
100 A noticeable problem during the events of the last few years, having evaluated the reliability of evidence findings submitted 101 by those seeking the Orders’ prior to my involvement 2nd August 2007, is the “The butler & picnic-hamper-affect―© James 102 Field 21st July 2010”, to explain: “…The Butler and the Picnic of Sophistry & Injustice : Public Inquiry Fixing Fraud: {Tertullian ↓} 103 Cum odio sui cœpit veritas. Simul atque apparuit, inimica est: The first reaction to truth is hatred. When it appears, it is treated as an enemy. ← 104 All Modification Orders clearly utilise common-law evidence i.e. old maps, tithe documentation, Finance Act 1910 and any local authority 105 evidence available, these represent the actual hamper and its bowls and utensils within, that is carried to every picnic [Inquiry] by those 106 regular participants at Inquiries. 107 The content of the hamper will vary from what Cook’s got in the kitchen and larder [available resources: library, records office and other 108 information available]. The butler experienced in picnics [the regular players] selects the ingredients what he or she prefers because they 109 know they will be eating too [their desired outcome of Inquiry] 110 They are aware of the guests at the picnic having alternative palate to their own, particular requirements, and are unfamiliar with picnics; 111 so the butler packs the hamper accordingly omitting any ingredients that the guests might prefer [anything detrimental to the Order]. 112 The butler also knows the regular meal timings of the guests [latest evidence submission timings] so acts accordingly to cause discomfort. 113 Finally the Butler arranges the picnic at a venue difficult to find at the best of times, inconvenient to the guest, and not ideal to the 114 preferences of the guests [provides late imbalanced reports]. 115 The combined effect of irregular meal timing and awkward location disadvantages and disturbs the guests. 116 Three noticeable oversights of the Butler [Travelling-forum]: one - they are expected to respect the very important guests, two - this is all 117 very public, and three - the guests are the truth. No matter what appearance is portrayed, the truth is sacrosanct.” © James Field 21st July 2010 118 From the facts of procedural abuses common to both Devon CC, DEFRA’s Travelling-forum and the Planning Inspectorate 119 Bristol (PIB) working in synergy to pervert the course of justice during their fraudulent expropriation of Violet Lane from 120 East Park Uffculme, it is most obvious that the brazen scoundrels (and by extension of conspiracy those in Land Registry and 121 PIB) that have worked alongside Messrs Wellands13 & Gollop in joint venture, appear to have done so without any legal 122 justification because of the underhand collusive tendencies involved &, it appears, their belief in the probability of impunity:
12 Undue influence: Trevelyan v. Charter, (1846) A public servant should not place him/her-self in a situation in which his duty to his principal & his private interest are directly at variance: “…in cases of fraud, I think time has no effect… …no length of time will secure…” Steel v. Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Unreported, 10 February 1993 [Mrs’ Spurway & Owen’s misconduct beyond propensity; They have demonstrated significant conduct to pervert the course of justice inclusive of fraudulent silence & imbalanced statements.] 13 Father & son being challenged is first recorded by the Parish Clerk 4th April 2005; however injuous falsehood is recorded 11 Sept 2001.
Page 3 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 4 of 34
123 Quinn v. Leathem [1901] AC 495; [1901] UKHL 2. — 5 Aug 1901, HL Lord Shand, Lord Macnaghten, Lord Lindley; Torts - Other, 124 Quinn was treasurer of a Belfast butchers' association. Leathem, who traded as a butcher, employed some non-union men, although when 125 the union made difficulties he asked for them to be admitted to the union, and offered to pay their dues. The union put pressure on Munce, 126 a wholesale customer of Leathem, to stop buying his meat. It also called out Dickie, one of Leathem's employees. 127 The jury found for Leathem, holding that there had been a malicious conspiracy between Quinn and other officers of the union. The Irish 128 Court of Appeal affirmed this. Held: The appeal failed. A conspiracy 'wrongfully and maliciously' to induce customers and servants of the 129 plaintiff not to deal with him was actionable on proof of damage. Though the coming together of a group of people is lawful, even though 130 it results in injury to the interests of others, such an agreement for no purpose other than the pursuit of a malicious purpose to injure 131 another would be unlawful. Any violation of legal rights, including rights under contract, committed knowingly and without justification, is 132 a tortious act. 133 The author aware of Alconbury, and interprets [the] collective acts of bad faith necessitate evaluation before an upright Judge: 134 Regina (Holding and Barnes Plc) v. Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions; Regina (Premier Leisure UK Limited) v. 135 Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions; Regina (Alconbury) etc [2000] EWHC Admin 432 136 13 Dec 2000. Admin’, Human Rights, Transport, Land 137 A declaration of incompatibility was granted with regard to the processes by which the Secretary of State made decisions under the 138 Planning Act and orders under the Transport and Works Act, Highways Act and Acquisition of Land Act. They were incompatible with 139 article 6.1 of the Convention on the basis that the processes failed to provide an independent tribunal. In some cases, the decisions being 140 challenged were those in effect of the Secretary, and the decision was made by somebody appointed by the subject to removal by the 141 secretary of state. The restrictions on the scope of the High Court to review the decisions and the freedom of the Secretary of State to make 142 his own decision after a public hearing, meant that applicants were deprived of the an independent tribunal. Human Rights Act 1998 - 143 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 - Acquisition of Land Act 1981 144 Alconbury 9th May 2001 U.K. House of Lords 145 Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v. Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd 146 and Others) v. Same; Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions v. Legal and General Ass [2001] UKHL 23 [2001] 2 147 AC 295 [2001] 2 WLR 1389 [2001] 2 All ER 929 ; HL, 2001-05-09, Lord Slynn of Hadley; Human Rights Planning Administrative 148 Constitutional 149 The powers of the Secretary of State, to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially 150 an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore was not a breach of the applicants' rights to a fair hearing before an impartial 151 tribunal. Some decisions are properly taken by ministers administratively and they are answerable to elected bodies. Also there existed in 152 many circumstances additional power to take such decisions was subject to judicial review by the courts. The test of whether there is 153 sufficient judicial control is not a mechanical one, but a test which varies according to the circumstances. In the absence of some special 154 circumstances the court should follow any clear and constant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. In interference with a 155 claimant's use of property as opposed to his ownership, will not usually give right to an order for compensation. 156 Lord Hoffmann described departmental decision-making processes: "These contain, on the one hand, elaborate precautions to ensure that 157 the decision-maker does not take into account any factual matters which have not been found by the inspector at the inquiry or put to the 158 parties and, on the other hand, free communication within the department on questions of law and policy, with a view to preparing a 159 recommendation for submission to the Secretary of State or one of the junior ministers to whom he has delegated the decision." but "the 160 process of consultation within the department is simply the Secretary of State advising himself". 161 Lord Hoffmann said: "The House is not bound by the decisions of the European Court and, if I thought that the Divisional Court was right 162 to hold that they compelled a conclusion fundamentally at odds with the distribution of powers under the British constitution, I would have 163 considerable doubt as to whether they should be followed" 164 Human Rights Act 1998 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 165 European Convention on Human Rights Links to judgments: - House of Lords - Bailii 166 para 73: 167 “The principles of judicial review give effect to the rule of law. They ensure that administrative decisions will be taken rationally, in 168 accordance with a fair procedure and within the powers conferred by Parliament”. 169 21 May 2006 170 Put to the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs by Cambridge University’s then Professor Malcolm Grant. 171 “This finding (the European Court’s) is unsatisfactory. If the initial hearing was, by definition, conducted by a tribunal which lacked the 172 requisite independence from the Executive, it is impossible to understand how that defect can be corrected by a right of appeal to a body 173 which does not have the power to re-hear the matter afresh… If the threat to the Inspector’s independence stems, as the Court found, from 174 his or her proximity to the Secretary of State, then appeal to the High Court on a point of law offers no escape from the violation.” 175 The fulcrum upon which any decision can be upheld, is made up of its ‘fairness and veracity’, any inference of fraud and bias 176 on behalf of the prosecution and adjudicator, and injustice will materialize. The elaborate precautions described by Lord 177 Hoffmann above, are most unreliable, and, it is perceived, deplorable. Five Fords has proven too much corruption flows from 178 within the Planning Inspectorate’s office. I perceive Buller J. [below] would be satisfied with the Fraud Act 2006 overview 179 by the HM Attorney General 9th January 2007 regarding the common law conspiracy to defraud. Ditto, he would find 180 satisfaction in reading the development of justice in the compendium that I provide annexed to [these documents.]
Page 4 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 5 of 34
181 In Master v. Miller [1793] Eng R 709; (1793) 5 TR 367; (1793) 101 ER 205 (A) — Buller J said: ‘It is a common saying in our law 182 books, that fraud vitiates every thing. I do not quarrel with the phrase, or mean in the smallest degree to impeach the various cases which 183 have been founded on the proof of fraud. But we must recollect that the principle which I have mentioned is always applied ad hominem. 184 He who is guilty of a fraud shall never be permitted to avail himself of it; and if a contract founded in fraud be questioned between the 185 parties to that contract, I agree, that as against the person who has committed the fraud, and who endeavours to avail himself of it, the 186 contract shall be considered as null and void… Even as between the parties themselves we must not forget the figurative language of Lord 187 Ch J Wilmot, who said [that]: “the statute law is like a tyrant; where he comes he makes all void: but the common law is like a nursing 188 father, and makes void only that part where the fault is, and preserves the rest.”’ 189 Regina v. Vreones (1891) 1 QB 360; (1968) 3 All ER 179 190 1891 Pollock B, Lord Coleridge CJ; Crime — It was alleged that the defendant had tampered with a sample of wheat to be used in an 191 arbitration, and he was accused of perverting the course of justice. Held: Perverting the course of justice is a common law offence covering 192 a wide variety of situations. The offence was committed when a person does an act or embarks on a course of conduct which tends and is 193 intended to pervert the course of justice. There is no closed list of acts which may give rise to the offence and it would be wrong to confine 194 it to the specific instances or categories which have so far appeared in the reported cases. An act is not beyond the ambit of those tending to 195 pervert the course of justice by reason of its being performed after the crime but before investigations into the alleged crime have begun. 196 Whether an act has a tendency to pervert the course of justice cannot depend upon whether investigation of the matter which may become 197 the subject of court proceedings has begun. 198 Lord Coleridge CJ: "The first count of the indictment in substance charges the defendant with the misdemeanour of attempting, by the 199 manufacture of false evidence, to mislead a judicial tribunal which might come into existence. If the act itself of the defendant was 200 completed, I cannot doubt that to manufacture false evidence for the purpose of misleading a judicial tribunal is a misdemeanour. Here, in 201 point of fact, no tribunal was misled, because the piece of evidence was not used; but I am of opinion that that fact makes no difference." 202 and "I think that an attempt to pervert the course of justice is in itself a punishable misdemeanour; and though I should myself have thought 203 so on the grounds of sense and reason, there is also plenty of authority to show that it is a misdemeanour in point of law." — Pollock B: 204 "The real offence here is the doing of some act which has a tendency and is intended to pervert the administration of public justice." 205 Regina v. Ghosh [1982] 1 QB 1053 75 Cr App R 154 [1982] 2 All ER 689 [1982] EWCA Crim 2 [1982] 3 WLR 110 206 CACD, 1982-04-05, Lord Lane CJ; Crime 207 The defendant was surgeon who was said to have made false claims for payment for operations. He was faced with several offences under 208 the 1968 Act. He claimed to have been entitled to the sums claimed, and denied that he had been dishonest. The court considered the 209 meaning of dishonesty. Held: The appeal failed. Dishonesty is a state of the mind rather than a course of conduct. The views of the jury as 210 to whether an Act was dishonest could not make an Act dishonest if it was not dishonest in the defendant's mind. The test was not purely 211 objective, but to accept an unvarnished subjective test would be to abandon all standards but those of the accused himself. Accordingly, a 212 jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest. If it 213 was dishonest by those standards, then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realized that what he was doing 214 was by those standards dishonest. Lord Lane CJ said: "In determining whether the Prosecution has proved that the defendant was acting 215 dishonestly, a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was 216 dishonest. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails. If it was dishonest by those 217 standards, then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realized that what he was doing was by those standards 218 dishonest. In most cases, where the actions are obviously dishonest by ordinary standards, there will be no doubt about it. It will be obvious 219 that the defendant himself knew that he was acting dishonestly. It is dishonest for a defendant to act in a way which he knows ordinary 220 people consider to be dishonest, even if he asserts or genuinely believes that he is morally justified in acting as he did." 221 When the events of expropriation and bad faith affecting, and interfering with the peaceful ownership of East Park : Five 222 Fords Farm came to my attention on 2nd August 2007 it was clear that the Devil’s hand* was at work. *Malice Actus
223 The reader is cautioned, that from my awareness of the bad faith & stealth, occurring only six weeks prior to the sham 224 Inquiry of 18th September 2007, I had a time frame of only two weeks to supply a statement if it were to adhere ‘the 4 week 225 prior to Inquiry rule’, as per Planning Inspectorate letter of 20th April 2007 that states four weeks. 226 jurare est Deum in testem vocare: to swear is to call God to witness. — On the 20th August 2007 I swore to tell only the truth. 227 The appearance of c30 years of misfeasance in office by the Parish Clerk would shortly reach its point of culmination, the 228 following is dated 29th Aug, therefore before the undated Devon County Council ‘proof of evidence’ is stamped received by 229 the Planning Inspectorate [Friday] 31st August 2007; unfortunately the significant sophistry & collusive fraud between the 230 BHS representative & DCC representative is only available, thus noticeable, if the BHS document is produced; it wasn’t! 231 Byway and Bridleway Extra: Law & Practice, Issue Date: 16.3.2008: 232 Have no fear 233 In an e-mail dated 29 August 2007, defra’s Mr Dave Waterman confirms that the government does indeed want all ‘lost ways’ to be 234 recorded and enjoyed. How might this stand up in the bold, new, post-DLW world? 235 “defra policy continues to have as a central objective the recording of all rights of way correctly on the definitive map and statement, 236 whether that be as footpath, bridleway, restricted byway or byway open to all traffic, although clearly the scope for recording byways open 237 to all traffic has diminished since commencement of the NERC Act. We would therefore not want to discourage anyone from making
Page 5 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 6 of 34
238 applications to have rights of way recorded on the definitive map and statement, where they believe that they have the necessary 239 evidence.” 240 The aforementioned email appears the formal ‘green light’ indicating the grand finally; the Culm Valley has seen many c130 241 Hercules’ the workhorses of our military professionals at work, but DEFRA’s Inquiry of 18th September 2007 was a Trojan 242 Horse14 for the Travelling-forum15 the curvetting16 reigned by Mrs Rudge and the likes of Mrs Annie Owen at the Planning 243 Inspectorate Bristol (PIB) to troke17 and truck the Public Inquiries. The capering taking place from behind the cloisters 244 violates the public’s right for transparency; equity was removed due to the prevalently oppressive bias during the undue 245 process of DEFRA’s scrap18. How many years the unity of withholding /holding back evidence by the Travelling-forum & 246 the Planning Inspectorate intrigues, see page 12: p3.33, of the DMO 1997 revision inclusive of 2006, in existence 18th Sept 2007.
247 On the 3rd of August 2007 I made a 32 minute telephone to the Planning Inspectorate, this forewarned them of my concern 248 for irregularities, but also that I was naive in Public Inquiries re PROWs.
249 On the 6th & 7th of August long duration phone calls were made to Devon CC, resulting in my visiting Mrs Spurway at 250 County Hall on the 7th. A week after my visit to County Hall (14th Aug), the BHS representative Mrs Parsons had created a 251 c60 page document dated 14th August 2007. This document19 was most significantly utilized during the 18th September 2007 252 Inquiry, and appears the fulcrum of Mr Millman’s report 15th October 2007. Despite challenges re statutory tithe evidence 253 prior to the day of first Violet Lane Inquiry, the defending parties remained in the dark to the 60p document’s existence; 254 therefore when I was seeking the !unknown! evidence submission & a fresh Inquiry, with a different Inspector, the lynchpin 255 holding the truth was missing. 256 In Regina v. Kray (1969) 53 Cr App R 412; [1970] 1 QB 125; (1969) 53 Cr App R 569 257 Lawton J said: "The drama of a trial almost always has the effect of excluding from recollection that which went before." 258 The court discussed how cases could be joined: "All that is necessary to satisfy the rule is that the offences should exhibit such similar 259 features as to establish a prima facie case that they can properly and conveniently be tried together." 260 Ditto, there is a mutual synergy within Yuvaraj & Thompson below, they are classic statements of judicial commonsense. 261 Public Prosecutor v. Yuvaraj [1970] AC 913; [1970] 2 WLR 226; Diplock L said: "Corruption in the public service is a grave social 262 event which is difficult to detect, for those who take part in it will be at pains to cover their tracks." 263 In Distiller's Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v. Thompson [1971] AC 458; Lord Pearson said "It is not the right approach to say that, because 264 there was no complete tort until the damage occurred, therefore the cause of action arose wherever the damage happened to occur. The 265 right approach is, when the tort is complete, to look back over the series of events constituting it and ask the question: where in substance 266 did this cause of action arise?" New South Wales Common Law Procedure Act 1899 18(4) This was reiterated by Lord Goff during 267 the Lloyd’s Reports: Armagas v. Mundogas; & The Ocean Frost [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1: documents of case, letters etc.
268 It is not the purpose of this document to teach law or history; given the gravity of what has taken place, and the large number 269 of people―known and unknown―that are involved in what some would identify as a cartwheel or hub & spoke conspiracy. 270 In A-G v Harris [1961] 1 QB 74. Sellers LJ said (at 86): 'It cannot, in my opinion, be anything other than a public detriment for the law to 271 be defied, week by week, and the offender to find it profitable to pay the fine and continue to flout the law.' Pearce LJ referred (at 92) to 272 'the community's general right to have the laws obeyed'. The afore principles were brought to issue by Lord Justice Leveson in the 273 Del Basso Case when he concluded by quoting from the final remarks of the trial judge, Judge Baker QC, who said: 274 I have received the strong impression that neither the [appellants] nor their accountants appreciated fully the risk that the 275 companies and individuals involved in the park and ride operation faced from confiscation proceedings. They have treated 276 the illegality of the operation as a routine business risk with financial implications of the form of potential fines or, at worst, 277 injunctive proceedings. This may reflect a more general public impression among those confronted by enforcement notices 278 with the decision whether to comply with the law or to flout it. The law, however, is plain. Those who choose to run 279 operations in disregard of planning enforcement requirements are at risk of having the gross receipts of their illegal
14 A lively or dissolute person, a boisterous companion. A hollow wooden statue of a horse in which the Greeks are said to have concealed themselves to enter Troy; A person, device, etc., deliberately set to bring about an enemy's downfall or to undermine from within; 15 16 A horse's leaping or frisking motion; (Of a horse or rider) perform a curvet; gen. leap (about), frisk. Cavort: Prance, caper about. Caper: 17 Troke (or truck): to deceive, beguile. Fail. An activity or occupation, esp. a risky or questionable venture; a ‘dodge’. 18 A plot, a sinister scheme. The difficulty of challenging bad faith because of qualified privilege, & the principles of judicial review. 19 Expressio unius personæ, vel rei, est exclusio alterius : (Co. Litt. 210.)—The express mention of one person, or thing, is the exclusion of another.36/100 — This maxim can be applied to both the absolute usage of the 1852 map that DCC relabelled “The Uffculme Tithe Map 1841” (ES.7)* just as it can the BHS summary relied on, instead of the BHS 60p document, & the collusive sophistry within. *{Regina v. Morris (David); Anderton v. Burnside [1984] HL, 1983-01-02 Lord Roskill; Crime: (Appropriation against the Wallers vested interest.)}
Page 6 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 7 of 34
280 businesses confiscated. This may greatly exceed their personal profits. In this respect they are in the same position as 281 thieves, fraudsters and drug dealers. Case: Del Basso & Goodwin v. R [2010] EWCA Crim 1119
282 In rebus manifestis, errat qui auccoritates legum allegat; quia perspicua vera non sunt probanda. In clear cases, he errs who 283 cites legal authorities because obvious truths are manifest and do not have to be proved. : In a proper court yes; in DEFRA’s 284 quasi theatre, no. Quando plus fit quam fieri debet videtur etiam illud fieri quod faciendum est : (8 Co. 85.)—When more is 285 done than ought to be done, then that is considered to have been done which ought to have been done.72/100
286 It is considered necessary to provide legal authorities (case law) to this document in support of my legitimate expectation, 287 that my belief in the principles of natural justice holds nexus to my sworn declaration at Mowbray Woodwards of Bath 288 (solicitors) on the 20th August 2007, and that I would be accountable for perjury, if having sworn, I were to have turned my 289 back on those of good character, that I had vowed to defend, knowing that they were telling the truth, and were victims, as I, 290 of a complex and oppressive conspiracy taking place to procure further rights of way by prevaricatory means.
291 Since that declaration I have stuck to my word on every occasion, to the best of my ability despite all and every(!) possible 292 adversity. The author attempts to remain independently objective at all times, and be a credible ‘expert witness’, but is forced 293 by the truth, to present the facts as he finds them; the reader’s gut reaction may be to revoke, but that is my obligation to 294 God, and in continuance of my declaration to District Judge Goddard on the 29th October 2009: 295 “Please could you inform District Judge Goddard that payment has been made to DEFRA, and that having sworn oath 20th August 296 2007, it is my intention and commitment to honour that declaration at Bath County Court as soon as practical.”
297 It would be most helpful to have all those that provided evidence statements at the Public Inquiry 18th September 2007 298 (Madgelake), and further evidence and/or statements for the second of 15th July 2008 under one roof on Tuesday 2nd October 299 2012. The Parish Council did not appear on the 15th July 08, because, we can infer, one week prior to the 2nd Inquiry, in their 300 minds, or be it said, in the mind of their legal officer Mr Welland [Who wrote to the Planning Inspectorate (my emphasis)]: 301 7th July 2008 302 Dear Ms… 303 Re: WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 SECTION 53 304 Devon County Council (Bridleway No.1, Uffculme) 305 Definitive Map Modification Order 2006 306 With reference to the Public Inquiry to be held on 15th July 2008 Uffculme Parish Council hope to be represented in person, 307 but confirm that it will not present any new evidence. The Council is satisfied with the evidence submitted at the original 308 Inquiry supporting public rights of way over the Order route, Violet Lane. In particular we would refer to the strong user 309 evidence and the County, Parish and Rural district Councils documentation of the roads networks in the 1940s. 310 The Council is of the opinion that Mr Millman’s decision is a fair one based on the evidence and the criticism of the 311 handling of the original Inquiry is completely unfounded. 312 We would support the Order for a Restricted Byway without amendment. 313 Yours sincerely 314 Francis Welland 315 Clerk to Uffculme Parish Council 316 Thus the presence of others such as Mrs A Owen, Y Oddy & J McEntee, and most importantly, although Mr Peter Millman 317 should not have chaired the staged event of 15th July 2008, it would be most appropriate that he did attend, to explain &, like 318 others, to provide answer to any questions the public may have on inquiry fixing, & if he thinks himself above the law.
319 I need not explain the contract that the Parish Clerk holds with the parishioners of Uffculme; as legal officer of the said 320 Parish Council, and a magistrate20, it appears wholly unholy that he does not abide by nor understand the rules and principles
20 Rex v. Borron (1820) 3 B & Ald 432 They [magistrates] are indeed, like every other subject of this kingdom, answerable to the law for the faithful and upright discharge of their trust and duties. Details of magistrates and Inspectors guidance and Code of Conduct annexed. Sharp v. Wakefield [1891] AC 173; 1891; HL Lord Halsbury LC considered the power of the duty of magistrates to consider the wants or needs of the neighbourhood and the nature of discretion: "discretion means, when it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities, that that discretion is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion: . . according to law, and not humour. It is to be not arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular. And it must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself." And, Taylor v. National Assistance Board [1957] 1 All ER 183: Lord Denning;
Page 7 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 8 of 34
321 of natural justice [as illustrated by his letters of 10th September 2006 and 7th July 2008]. Mr Welland’s stealthy appropriation 322 and reckless failure to act according to legal commonsense having been politely challenged in c1980 for trespassing would 323 amount to contempt. — By 1993 UPC’s policy re PROWs was set in stone, the retrospective facts assist in proving that an 324 agenda of prevarication was in motion. All (c99.999%) of the Parish Minutes particular to paths & ways within the Parish 325 have been reproduced in MS Word format in a contiguous list to enable pattern searches and activities to be made.
326 Mr Welland was reckless to make such a profound statement on behalf of Uffculme Parish Council as he did 7th July 2008, 327 he had placed himself before the truth, it was not the first time, his lack of integrity is recorded to have commenced when he 328 took office, by his not placing Parish Council signage to counteract that in place on Violet Lane since time immemorial 329 affronting any public use. The reader is advised that achieving PROW should take an honest and natural course, either, an 330 overt act of dedication, or a natural ‘20 years’ acquiescence. Aversion & insincerity appears Mr Welland’s only agenda.
331 But what of his mentors―Mr & Mrs Gollop leaving him with what appears to be a ‘smoking gun’ of misfeasance in public 332 office due to his c30 years of entryism and jobbery inclusive of targeted malice against the occupiers of Five Fords Farm, the 333 appearance of a retaliatory act of stealth for politely informing him and his father that they were on private property. The 334 Uffculme Parish Minutes and ‘Spotlight’ (parish magazine) reveal unwise damning ‘public statements’ both before and after 335 the sham Inquiries of 2007 & 2008, thus automatically annulling any future claim of neutrality re the Old Dairy Path.
336 The Minutes of September 2001 record that he made what is considered to be slanderous statement, a libel recorded in the 337 Minutes, against the lawful owners of Violet Lane, the following months Minutes, October 2001, continue the libel and 338 reinforce the appearance of long-term stealth and appropriation in existence. 339 Rex v. Rispal [1762] EngR 54; (1762) 3 Burr 1320; (1762) 97 ER 852 (B) 340 19 Jun 1762, Crime 341 The defendants were accused of having falsely accused another man, Mr Chilton, of having removed hair from bales of human hair being 342 sold. Mr Chilton was arrested. Held. The justices of peace had jurisdiction in the present case; a conspiracy being a trespass, and tending to 343 a breach of the peace and they held, that the indictment was well laid ; and that the gist of the offence is the unlawful conspiring to injure 344 the man by this false charge. They all therefore concurred in opinion, that the rule ought to be discharged. 345 Mr Welland’s lubricious User Evidence form of 4th April 2005 was compromised by Mrs Hilson’s veracity 24th April 2005. 346 [Since 2003 Mrs E Spurway is recorded to have presented herself as a sociopath; her sophistry — telling lies and writing 347 fraudulent and imbalanced reports; a primary example of this is her omission of Mrs Hilson’s statement of signage, and that 348 the person challenged now claiming c50 years use was the Parish Clerk Mr F Welland. Everyone turns a blind eye on this 349 aspect ― following the 4th April 2005 when he provided his UEF ― what appears to be the first public statement of being 350 challenged. No-one appears phased by this legal slip21; who knew before, it appears inconceivable that he or his father did 351 not tell Cllr/Mr J Gollop and others. The contribution of Mrs Spurway to this current Modification Order is most significant.]
352 During the 18th September 2007 Public Inquiry Mr Welland produced an in-depth statement which clearly contradicts what 353 he said earlier in April 2005, most importantly the truth. Rule of estoppel applies. It all adds to the evidence trail regarding 354 the dishonesty shown to Mrs Browning MP*, now Baroness Browning. Within Mr Welland’s letter of 10th September 2006 355 to Mrs Browning there is a plethora of nonsense and deceit, it amounts to contempt against a member of Parliament 356 performing their civic duty. 357 [*See Harry Evans’s: ‘Seminar at the Australian Government’s 27th Conference of Presiding Officers and Clerks, Hobart, July 1996 358 ‘Protection of Persons Who Provide Information to Members (of Parliament)’] 359 Regina v. Roberts (Michael); Regina v. Roberts (Jason) [1998] EWCA Crim 1193 360 2 May 1998; CACD — Criminal Evidence 361 Lord Bingham of Cornhill: "it seems to us plain that the duty of any witness when giving a statement is to describe the relevant events to 362 the best of his or her honest recollection and certainly not to invent or fabricate evidence to assist the prosecution or the defence. …the 363 witness may find that in some respects his or her recollection had been at fault, and the witness may wish to correct or modify earlier 364 evidence. It is however in our view a matter of the utmost importance that nothing should be done which amounts to rehearsing the 365 evidence of a witness, or coaching the witness so as to encourage the witness to alter the evidence originally given. The acid test is whether 366 the procedure adopted in any particular case is such as to taint the resulting evidence. It is, we would stress, necessary to preserve equality 367 of arms so that facilities are not made available to the prosecution which are not made available to the defence. On the prosecution side we 368 see no reason to distinguish between police and non-police witnesses. They should be treated the same. " Criminal Justice Act 1988 3
As to the power of a court to issue a declaration; the remedy is not excluded by the fact that the determination of the board is by statute made 'final'. Parliament gives the impression of finality to the decisions of the board only on the condition that they are reached in accordance with the law . . ." 21 A mistake, an oversight; a moral lapse. : A paradigm to their minds refuting signage placement ≠ SkyViews of Leeds 1969, 1975—1990
Page 8 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 9 of 34
369 During the 70s, 80s, & 90s, I witnessed Rope or cord as a regular feature across the southern end of the Violet Lane, what 370 any trespasser or licensed user’s perception was of the barrier is immaterial — it was an overt obstruction with associated 371 signage within the immediate vicinity. The Second War Office Map 1940-41 records a gate upon the lane. Certified 372 photographs from Skyviews of Leeds covering the period 1969 — 1990 record signage placement upon the linhay in what 373 appears according to the rule of physics the most suitable placement. The same signage that I witnessed from the early 1970s.
374 During the spring of 1998 ‘No Public Right of Way’ signs were placed at either end of Violet Lane; these signs were created 375 with the assistance of Sgt Belsom’s Family who wrote a statement of support that was provided at the Sept 07 Inquiry; I am 376 in possession of one of the original signs produced by the Belsom Family. (Devon & Cornwall Constabulary)
377 The above signs as statutory evidence remove the credibility of those such as Mrs Ferrier and the Parish Clerk stating 378 frequent usage and no signage. Mr Welland has certainly backpedalled (furiously) regarding this issue, his credibility fallen.
379 ‘A Handy Book of Parish Law’ by W.A. Holdsworth Barrister at Law, Oct 1859 revision March 1872 380 Of Highways page 77, states: …The erection of a bar to prevent the passing of carriages, rebuts the presumption of a dedication to the 381 public, although the bar may have long broken down; and though such a bar do not impede the passing of persons on foot, no public right 382 to a footway is acquired. 383 In every case, the facts must be such as are sufficient to show that the owner meant to give the public a right of way over his soil, before a 384 dedication by him will be presumed. And nothing done by a lessee or tenant without the consent of the owner of the land, will give a right 385 to the public. 386 The ‘Parish Councillor’s Guide’ A Complete Guide to the Duties, Powers and Liabilities of Parish Councils, 7th Edition by F.L. Edwards, 387 OBE, M.A. Barrister-at-Law June 1946 states: 388 The local Government Act of 1894 placed on rural district councils, the duty of taking action in cases when any new ‘Private’ notice was 389 placed or erected on any land in connection with a reputed public right of way, the matter should be reported to the Rural District Council. 390 A land owner cannot be prevented from exhibiting a ‘Private’ notice on his property, but the County Council as the Highway Authority can 391 and should counteract the effect of the notice by erecting a ‘Public Footpath’ or ‘Public Bridleway’ notice at the ends of any Public Path 392 which is challenged by the ‘Private’ notice. 393 ‘National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949’ — No conclusion should be drawn that East Parks are public parks!22 394 57 Penalty for displaying on footpaths notices deterring public use. It is the principles within §(3)It shall… to which I refer. 395 (1)If any person places or maintains, on or near any way shown on a definitive map, or on a revised map prepared in definitive form, as a 396 public path or road used as a public path, a notice containing any false or misleading statement likely to deter the public from using the 397 way, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds. 398 (2)The court before whom a person is convicted of an offence under the last foregoing subsection may, in addition to or in substitution for 399 the imposition of a fine, order him to remove the notice in respect of which he is convicted within such period, not being less than four 400 days, as may be specified in the order; and if he fails to comply with the order he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not 401 exceeding two pounds for each day on which the failure continues. 402 (3)It shall be the duty of a highway authority to enforce the provisions of this section as respects any public path, or road used as a public 403 path, for which they are the highway authority; and no proceedings in respect of an offence under those provisions shall be brought except 404 by the authority required by this subsection to enforce those provisions as respects the path or road in question. [F81 or by the council of 405 the district [F82 or, where they are not the highway authority, the council of the Welsh county or county borough] in which the notice is 406 placed or maintained]. 407 [F81 Words added b Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70, SIF 81:1) Sch. 21 para. 97 408 [F82 Words in s. 57(3) inserted (1.4.1996) by 1994 c. 19, s. 20(4), Sch. 6 Pt. II para. 15(1) (with ss. 54(5)(7), 55(5), Sch. 17 para. 22(1), 409 23(2)); S.I. 1996/396, art. 3, Sch. 1
410 The facts of contempt are recorded within the Parish Minutes, over the years numerous Cllrs & Parishioners of Uffculme 411 have placed trust in Messrs Welland, Gollop and Hilson23, but the synergy of like minds such as those of the Travelling- 412 forum, combined with them, and created a simmering cauldron of infatuation and corruption, a dark evil, brewing within. 413 Regina v. Devon County Council Ex Parte Baker, Regina v. Durham County Council Ex Parte Broxson [1995] 1 All ER 73 414 22 Feb 1993, CA Simon Brown LJ; Local Government, Administrative 415 A Local Authority considering closing a residential home did not have a duty to notify and consult with each resident who might be 416 affected, but did have a duty to act fairly, and to give sufficiently prominent notice and sufficient time to allow residents to make 417 representations and give their objections, and for these to be considered. Considering legitimate expectations: "Sometimes the phrase is
22 Minutes 11 Sept 2001 The Parish Clerk made abhorrent remarks claiming Unclassified County Road. The ensuing stealth acquiescing. 23 Faith or confidence in the loyalty, strength, veracity, etc., of a person or thing; reliance on the truth of a statement etc. without examination. In unlawful conspiracy Nemo contra factum suum venire potest : (2 Inst. 66.)—No one can come against his own deed.472/800
Page 9 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 10 of 34
418 used to denote a substantive right: an entitlement that the claimant asserts cannot be denied him.....various authorities show that the 419 claimants right will only be found established when there is a clear and unambiguous representation upon which it was reasonable for him 420 to rely. Then the administrator or other public body will be held bound in fairness by the representation made unless only its promise or 421 undertaking as to how its power would be exercised is inconsistent with the statutory duties imposed upon it. The doctrine employed in this 422 sense is akin to an estoppel. In so far as the public body’s representation is communicated by way of a stated policy, this type of legitimate 423 expectation falls into two distinct sub categories: cases in which the authority are held entitled to change their policy even so as to effect 424 the claimant, and those in which they are not." 425 Regina v. Lewes Crown Court ex parte Hill [1991] 93 Cr App R 60 {See Lord Camden’s Speech in Entick v. Carrington [1765]} 426 Bingham LJ said: "The Police and Criminal Evidence Act governs a field in which there are two very obvious public interests. There is, 427 first of all, a public interest in the effective investigation and prosecution of crime. Secondly, there is a public interest in protecting the 428 personal and property rights of citizens against infringement and invasion. There is an obvious tension between these two public interests 429 because crime could be most effectively investigated and prosecuted if the personal and property rights of citizens could be freely 430 overridden and total protection of the personal and property rights of citizens would make investigation and prosecution of many crimes 431 impossible or virtually so. 432 The 1984 Act seeks to effect a carefully judged balance between these interests and that it why it is a detailed and complex Act. If the 433 scheme intended by Parliament is to be implemented it is important that the provisions laid down in the Act should be fully and fairly 434 enforced. It would be quite wrong to approach the Act with any preconception as to how these provisions should be operated save in so far 435 as such preconception is derived from the legislation itself. 436 It is, in my judgment, clear that the courts must try to avoid any interpretation which would distort the parliamentary scheme and so upset 437 the intended balance. In the present field, the primary duty to give effect to the parliamentary scheme rests on circuit judges. It seems plain 438 that they are required to exercise those powers with great care and caution. " 439 An officer applying for a search warrant is under a duty not only to avoid positive misrepresentation but "to make a full disclosure of all 440 matters which might affect the court's decision to make or refuse the order and, in particular, to make disclosure of all matters known to 441 [them] which might militate against the making of an order." Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
442 Most notable during the events of Definitive Map Review Uffculme is the abhorrent lack of integrity, and non-desire for the 443 truth shown by those involved in the conspiracy to defraud. Those involved in the provision of evidence have re-written the 444 history of Uffculme or misrepresented it to suit their political cause. From his participation Mr Gollop has a lot to answer for. 445 Sufficient overt non dedication has taken place, but the evidence unambiguously records the Parish Clerk’s (& others) desire 446 for further PROWs, being thwarted during the 1980s and later. The coming together of User Groups and leisure industry, and 447 new statutes through the 1990s and beyond 2000, regulating the countryside, has instigated oppressive political―unlawful 448 tactics (bad faith). Can we infer that any signage would have drawn Mr Gollop’s close attention? Yes;—the facts irrefutable!
449 The reader is cautioned that this document’s provision of historical information is purely to understand the nexus between the 450 origin of Wallers legal right to overtly refute the Parish Clerk and his father for trespassing upon their home as they did in 451 c1980, at a time when there was clear signage in place to counteract any public right of way, and sanction other acts of overt 452 non dedication. stultum est dicere, putabam: it is foolish to say, I did not think: Mort Dock―Wagon Mound no 1 & 2, 1966
453 The Wallers overt acts of non dedication may not have been exemplary but they have been more than sufficient to satisfy the 454 following authorities when the plethora of UPC & DCC conspiracies, bad faith, deceit and corruption is reviewed: 455 Denning LJ in Fairey v. Southampton County Council [1956] 2 QB 439 (In the Court of Appeal) 456 Regina v. Secretary of State for Environment ex parte Robert D Billson [1998] EWHC Admin 189; [1999] QB 374 457 Godmanchester Town Council & Anor, R (on the application of) v. Secretary Of State For Environment, Food & Rural Affairs & 458 Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 22, 2004, [2004] EWHC 1217 (Admin),[2004] 4 All ER 342,[2005] 1 WLR 926 459 The Queen On the application of Norfolk County Council -&- The S of S DEFRA [2005] EWHC 119 460 Godmanchester, 20th June 2007, House of Lords Session 2006–07 [2007] UKHL 28 on appeal from: [2005] EWCA Civ 1597
461 The following statement of authority was made two years before Mr Francis Welland became Parish Clerk and legal officer 462 of UPC, later a Magistrate, but one illustrating himself ignorant of the principles of natural justice during the recent events. 463 ECHR 7 Dec 1976 "Article 14 prohibits, within the ambit of the rights and freedoms guaranteed, discriminatory treatment having as its 464 basis or reason a personal characteristic ('status') by which persons or groups of persons are distinguishable from each other."24
465 The Parish Minutes and available facts compiled from the ‘proofs of evidences’ volunteered during the Definitive Map 466 Review (DMR) of Uffculme, and other available resources is that Messrs Gollop & Welland, and those that conspired in their
24 Kieldsen, Busk and Pedersen v. Denmark 5926/72; [1976] ECHR 6; 5095/71; 5920/72; (1976) 1 EHRR 71
Page 10 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 11 of 34
467 unwarranted cause of trespass, knew from an early period that the only way they would achieve a legitimate right of access 468 was acquiescence. But they knew it would never be. — Ignorant of moral values and assuming that it would be a walk in the 469 park with little opposition from an elderly couple, and the support of DEFRA, they fabricated the discovery of evidence: 470 (BRIDLEWAY No. 1, UFFCULME) 471 This Order is made by Devon County Council under section 53(2)(b) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (“the Act”)… 472 …Dated this 14th day of August 2006 ~ The Common Seal of the Devon… …Document 37020
473 Omnia præsumuntur ritè et solemniter esse acta : (Co. Litt. 6.)—All things are presumed to be correctly and solemnly 474 done.568/800 — It is irrational to infer that the recording of the original Definitive Map (Five Fords, Uffculme) was erroneous.
475 The Travelling-forum members and their fellow conspirators appear to abhor the reasoning behind the statutes and English 476 & Welsh laws* that have developed since time immemorial, or that our commonwealth supposedly represents a democracy 477 since c1688-89. And yet I am no hypocrite, for I recognise their claiming legal adherence etc. etc. when referring to Tithe 478 and Finance Act documents. [*The majority reading this document and its accompanying documents, may find the reading of the 479 legal authorities within, most enjoyable, but they (the reader) will also connect with the simplicity & logical commonsense within.] 480 Their two immediate problems independent of lacking general veracity, and their deceitful conduct, is that they present little 481 comprehension, or evidence of their researching / understanding local history and society throughout the ages; they have not 482 shown credible research particular to Five Fords, & when they were challenged on this head they produced more buffoonery 483 which, when considered in the circumstance of conspiracy to defraud, merely amounted to fraud to conceal fraud.*
484 *Acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta : (8 Co. 146.)—External actions show internal secrets.8/800
485 Fraus est celare fraudem : (1 Vern. 270.)—It is fraud to conceal fraud.202/800 We must counter the unscrupulous ambitions of 486 Mr Millman & the Travelling-forum, because Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat : (5 Co. 69.)—Impunity always invites to 487 greater crimes.242/800 In public crime Voluntas reputabatur pro facto : (3 Inst. 69.)—The will is to be taken for the deed.100/100 488 More so when the perpetrators appear contracted by the state to forcefully suppress the truth, and vilify their innocent 489 victims, in order to achieve during their contrived discovery of ‘public right’, it has illustrated their rejuvenating the “1678 490 discovery of the ‘Popish Plot’ by Titus Oates”, in preference to democracy won by the people for the people in 1688-89.
491 Events have struck at me as a third party, in the one instance, my seeking to remedy the encompassing evil using honest 492 means when the events of bad faith came my way; the other an inherent right to protect my sporting rights granted Feb 1985: 493 Holywell Union v. Halkin District Mines Drainage Co; HL 1895 494 The landowner had granted to a drainage company an exclusive right of drainage though a tunnel and a watercourse in his land, with the 495 right of placing works in the tunnel and the watercourse and of making other tunnels in connection therewith, reserving to himself mineral 496 and other rights. The Court of Appeal had held that the company had no more than an easement, and was not in rateable occupation of 497 anything. 498 Held: The appeal was allowed. The company was in occupation of the tunnel and watercourse for the purposes of and in connection with 499 the enjoyment of the easement, and had the exclusive use of them for the purposes of drainage, the rights reserved to the landowner being 500 subordinate to those granted to the company. 501 Answering the company’s submission that occupation, to be rateable, had to be exclusive, and that the rights reserved by the landowner 502 showed that the company did not have exclusive occupation, Lord Herschell LC said: ‘It was strongly contended, on behalf of the 503 respondents, that they could not be liable to be rated, inasmuch as they were not in exclusive occupation. 504 There are many cases where two persons may, without impropriety, be said to occupy the same land, and the question has sometimes 505 arisen which of them is rateable. Where a person already in possession has given to another possession of a part of his premises, if that 506 possession be not exclusive he does not cease to be liable to the rate, nor does the other become so. 507 A familiar illustration of this occurs in the case of a landlord and his lodger. Both are, in a sense, in occupation, but the occupation of the 508 landlord is paramount, that of the lodger subordinate.’ 509 Lord Davey said: ‘But then it is said that the occupation is not exclusive, inasmuch as the Duke of Westminster has reserved certain rights 510 to himself and his licensees over the tunnels and water-course, and in pursuance of such reserved rights the Halkyn Mining Company have 511 laid a tramway along one of the tunnels and have placed ventilating pipes there. 512 Two questions arise: What is meant by exclusive occupation when used in connection with the subject of rating? And, What are the 513 conditions subject to which the Duke exercises his reserved rights? 514 It is clear that exclusive occupation does not mean that nobody else has any rights in the premises. The familiar case of landlord and lodger 515 is an illustration. 516 The cases shew that if a person has only a subordinate occupation subject at all times to the control and regulation of another, then that 517 person has not occupation in the strict sense for the purposes of rating, but the rateable occupation remains in the other, who has the right 518 of regulation and control.’
Page 11 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 12 of 34
519 [Newspaper Article Amongst sporting & general papers of the Clarke Family of Bridwell House, Uffculme; (Devon R. Office)] 520 Anderson V. Vicary Supreme Court of Judicature; Court of Appeal recorded The Times Wednesday 30th May 1930 521 Before Lord Justice A. L. Smith, Lord Justice Vaughn Williams, and Lord Justice Romer 522 This was an appeal from a judgement of Mr. Justice Wright’s at the trial without a jury, reported 15 The Times Law Reports, 496. The 523 action was brought by Mr. Frank Herbert Anderson against Mr. William Vicary for damages for trespass to sporting rights held by the 524 plaintiff over land known as the Plumley estate, at Bovey Tracey, in the county of Devon. The defendant, who had trapped rabbits upon 525 that portion of the Plumley estate of which he was the owner and occupier, pleaded that he was entitled to do so by virtue of the Ground 526 Game Act, 1880. 527 … The question was whether a person who, like the defendant, was the owner as well as the occupier of land was in favour of whom the 528 Ground Game Act Applied, and whether such a person, was at liberty to kill rabbits, not withstanding that his predecessor in title had 529 conveyed away the sporting rights. Mr. justice Wright was of the opinion that the intention of the Act was that there should be no land over 530 which the occupier should not have the right to kill ground game, and that, as far as this right was concerned, an occupying owner was to 531 be treated like any other occupier. He therefore gave judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. 532 …The Court dismissed the appeal...... Lord Justice Vaughan Williams said...... he thought that the judgment of Mr. Justice Wright was 533 correct... 534 ...The Act provided that every occupier of land should always have the statutory right mentioned in section 1—viz., the right to kill and 535 take ground game, inseparable from his occupation of the land. In his view the language of the Act was wide enough to cover the case of 536 an occupier who was the landowner as well as an occupier who was a tenant... 537 ... Lord Justice Romer said he thought that the judgment of Mr. Justice Wright should be affirmed. In his opinion the policy of the Ground 538 Game Act was to ensure that all occupiers of land should have the right to kill and take ground game; and the object of the Act was to give 539 that right to all occupiers of the land who would not have it independently of the Act... 540 ... If such a distinction were to be drawn, it would cause injustice in the working of the Act. For instance, if a landlord with an agricultural 541 tenant granted a lease of shooting rights, the tenant of the shooting rights could not interfere with the right of the agricultural tenant under 542 the Act. If then the agricultural tenant absconded, and the landlord went into possession, according to the contention of the appellant the 543 landlord would be obliged to work the farm subject to the right of the lessee of the shooting to let the ground game multiply. Yet why 544 should the rights of the tenant under the shooting lease be thus enlarged? Again, a young farmer might be lessee to his father of a small 545 farm over which the rights of shooting might be let. If the father died, and the son succeeded to the freehold, according to the appellant the 546 son would lose his statutory right and the shooting tenant would acquire a right which he had not before. In his opinion the Act ought not to 547 be cut down so as to shut out any occupier, so long as independently of the Act he had no right to kill and take game. 548 Drive Yourself Hire Co (London) Ltd v. Strutt [1954] 1 QB 250 — CA, Lord Denning MR; Contract 549 The court discussed the doctrine of privity of contract: "It is often said to be a fundamental principle of our law that only a person who is a 550 party to a contract can sue on it. I wish to assert, as distinctly as I can, that the common law in its original setting knew no such principle. 551 Indeed, it said quite the contrary. For the 200 years before 1861 it was settled law that, if a promise in a simple contract was made 552 expressly for the benefit of a third person in such circumstances that it was intended to be enforceable by him, then the common law would 553 enforce the promise at his instance, although he was not a party to the contract." Law of Property Act 1925 56 554 In re Ellenborough Park [1956] 1 Ch 131 [1956] 3 All ER 667 [1955] EWCA Civ 4 555 1955-11-15, Lord Evershed MR; Land, Torts - Other 556 Parties claimed a public right to wander through the grounds of the park. Held: No such right could have been granted or was properly 557 claimed. Lord Evershed MR said: "There is no doubt, in our judgment, but that Attorney-General v. Antrobus was rightly decided; for no 558 such right can be granted (otherwise than by Statute) to the public at large to wander at will over an undefined open space, nor can the 559 public acquire such a right by prescription." and "the right conferred no more amounts to a joint occupation of the park with its owners, no 560 more excludes the proprietorship or possession of the latter, than a right of way granted through usage, or than the use by the public of the 561 gardens of Lincoln's Inn Fields … amount to joint occupation of that garden with the London County Council, or involve an inconsistency 562 with the possession or proprietorship of the council as lessees." 563 Judgment links: [Bailii] = www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1955/4.html Ellenborough Park, Re [1955] EWCA Civ 4 (15 November 1955)
564 We have to look at all the available scenarios that infer bad faith and conspiracy to defraud that have caused the Definitive 565 Map Review process [Nationally?] to be absolute folly made of illicit collusion & sophistry, by 2005 the criminality intense.
566 Adopting stealth fuelled their own acquiescence, for acquiescence is a two edged sword, whilst seeking to draw one edge 567 they have cut themselves with the other; recorded by the P-Minutes. It is not the purpose of this document to expand upon or 568 distinguish in great detail between the two simultaneous confrontational and conflicting claims made by the perpetrators 569 involved; that a) Violet Lane has been a public road open to all traffic since time immemorial, and, b) landowner dedication 570 had taken place sometime many years prior; I quote from Mr Millman’s fraudulently bias report of 15th October 2007: 571 27. Violet Lane has existed as a through route from at least the late 18th century. None of 572 the documentary evidence supports the view that it is a private accommodation or occupation 573 road. The local authority records from the 1940s show that Violet Lane was then considered by 574 the Parish Council to be a county road, in other words an all-purpose public highway, and
Page 12 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 13 of 34
575 this evidence is supported by the Finance Act and Tithe evidence. I conclude that at some 576 time in the past, very probably well before the mid-19th century, Violet Lane was dedicated 577 by the owner as a public highway for all vehicles. No evidence that those rights have been 578 extinguished was presented (save rights for mechanically propelled vehicles – see paragraphs 579 39-40 below). I conclude that Violet Lane is a public vehicular highway.
580 36. Although it is possible that the owners of Five Fords farm told some people before 2001 581 that Violet Lane was private and that they were trespassing, I have already concluded that 582 they did not and do not own the lane. Any such statements, or any notices erected by them 583 prior to 2001 would not therefore be evidence of the intention of the owner of the land. No 584 other evidence of an intention not to dedicate public bridleway rights has been put forward.
585 37. I conclude that the statutory test is met and that, had Violet Lane not already carried 586 vehicular rights, it could be presumed that public bridleway rights have been dedicated.
587 Dolus et fraus una in parte sanari debent : (Noy Max. 45.)—Deceit and fraud should always be remedied.131/800
588 We digress to the role of outsiders ‘agent provocateurs’ & DEFRA appointing their own Chair at a public inquiry.25
589 Injurious Falsehood - Having fabricated the discovery of evidence to satisfy the amendment to the Definitive Map to achieve 590 their desire Uffculme Parish Council (UPC), Devon County Council (DCC) crossed the ultimate line, they defamed the good 591 integrity of those morally superior since time immemorial. UPC wrote in support, endorsing the Inspector’s findings & foul 592 words of defamation & vilification, we will remember, let them not forget that it appears that half a century of scheming has 593 taken place, the names Gollop & Welland are now synonymous with bad faith and injustice ― tyranny effecting Uffculme.
594 One of the most contemptuous26 organisations involved in the expropriation of Violet Lane from Five Fords Farm is the 595 British Horse Society (BHS) their representative’s skulduggery and evil sophistry in collusion with the DCC representative 596 and others not only affronts, but also undermines the core values of the British Monarchy. The DCC representative Mrs E 597 Spurway and the BHS representative Mrs J Parsons are a disgrace and a bad example to others, particularly the young.
598 Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat : (5 Co. 69.)—Impunity always invites to greater crimes.242/800 See the BHS summary st 599 for the 1 Violet Lane sham: adeo in teneris consuescere multum est: so much depends upon habit in the tender years (Virgil) 600 HM Queen Elizabeth II is the Patron of the BHS, she appears to the author, a most remarkable, dignified and honourable 601 lady, he is proud to have served in her regiment ‘1st Royal Horse Artillery’ and worn her cipher during the process. The 602 cipher originated from her 17th great-grandfather King Edward III, whom granted Sir Richard Cogan licence of special grace 603 to enclose and make a park of his wood of Ufcolme…in 1336, approximately twelve years prior to the creation of the ‘Order 604 of the Garter’ in 1348. This licence is an apt defence to the regular bad faith that emanates from DEFRA’s offices in Bristol. 605 Calendar of the Charter Rolls, Vol. IV. 1 – 14 EDWARD III. A.D. 1327 – 1341 ~ Held at the Public Record Office Kew, London 606 Membrane 26. March 17. Westminster 56 607 Enclosure of Ufcolme and Free Warren, 17th March 1336 608 "Licence, of special grace, to Richard Cogan, to strengthen with a wall of stone and mortar and to crenellate his house (mansum) of 609 Baumton, co. Devon, and to enclose and make a park of his wood of Ufcolme, co. Devon, and the 300 acres of land, meadow and pasture 610 adjacent thereto, and to hold the said park and manor to him and his heirs without let or hinderance of the king and his heirs* or any of 611 their ministers**; provided that they are not within the king's forest; grant also, of special grace, to the said Richard and Mary his wife of 612 free warren in all their demesne lands of Hunnespel, co. Somerset, and Baumton and Ufcolm, co. Devon." As long as that land is not within 613 the king’s forest. Also that no one may enter these lands to hunt or take anything pertaining to the warren without the licence and 614 permission of Richard and Mary or their heirs on pain of a fine (forisscuram) of 10 pounds in hand. 615 *Queen Elizabeth II, & **Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, & Secretary of State DEFRA MR Benn. [At the time of sham inquiries]27 616 Quando jus domini regis et subditi concurrunt jus regis præferri debet : (9 Co, 129.)—When the rights of the King and of the 617 subject concur, those of the King are to be preferred.70/100
618 Regina non potest peccare : (3 Roll. R. 304.)—The Queen can do no wrong.86/100 [modified] 619 The BHS were advised by email and letter [my letter, recorded, received 9th July] their legal representative to attend the 15th 620 July 2008 meeting, they were requested to call me, but I received no acknowledgment. I perceive their condonation of lies 621 and contempt towards the Queen’s subjects and democracy is therefore uncontrollably directed at their patron the Queen.
25 Regina v. Loosely 25 October 2001 [2001] UKHL 53 provides a perfect framework judicial opinion on unconscionable acts by the state. 26 Defying or despising law and public order. Showing or full of contempt; disdainful, scornful, insolent. 27 Political Ministers and polititions change subject to election, civil servants within departments tend to be be more static.
Page 13 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 14 of 34
622 The home of Mr & Mrs Waller was and continues to be interfered with by H.M. Queen Elizabeth IIs ministers originating 623 from the Office of Secretary of State DEFRA; But it would be preposterous to even contemplate Her Majesty having any 624 implication, or knowing of the frauds that have taken place at Five Fords, Uffculme, or the oppressive activities of her 625 ministers against an elderly farming couple, nor the wider (national) number of frauds committed by the BHS, those that 626 appear sanctioned by the S of S DEFRA, to increase the number of entries on the Definitive Map.
627 Whether it is the history of the 1336 sporting farm of Uffculme’s, by estimation 62 acres as recorded during the middle 16th 628 century; originally part of the 300 acre park and free warren granted by King Edward III on the 17th March 1336; or the 62½ 629 acres recorded within the Tithe Act 1836 papers, or, the 62½ acres of agricultural land recorded in the Finance Act 1909-10 630 papers. According to common law the c1.027 acres of Violet Lane has never left the acreage of the demesne farm recorded in 631 the Portland papers, nor evidence of public access produced. The afore is only a few links of a long evidential chain.28
632 Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se introducto : (2 Inst. 183.)—Every one is able to renounce a right introduced for 633 himself.78/100 Terra transit cum onere : (Co. Litt. 231.)—Land passes with its encumbrance.750/800*
634 Consuetudo manerii et loci observanda est : (4 Co. 21.)—The custom of a manor and place is to be observed.93/800 635 *The sporting rights granted by King Edward the III would not have been compromised by previous owners of Five Fords 636 Barton by having public access over it29. I have a most comprehensive database, against the probability of any dedication. 637 They were bankers and investors, on top of all they were keen sportsmen with a significant passion for shooting; I have 638 plenty of cogent evidence of this. We should not turn a blind eye to the events of land ownership history relative to the 639 various, perceived quite regular categories30 of evidence produced during Devon’s Definitive Map Review inquiries.
640 Monumenta quæ nos recorda vocamus sunt veritatis et vetustatis vestigia: (Co. Litt. 118.)—Monuments which we call 641 records, are the vestiges of truth and antiquity.441/800 Charters sont appellé "muniments" à "muniendo" quia muniunt et 642 defendunt hæreditatem : (4 Co. 153.)—Charters are called "muniments" from "muniendo," because they fortify and defend 643 the inheritance.65/800 Benignè faciendæ sunt interpretationes, propter simplicitatem laicorum, ut res magis valeat quam pereat; 644 et verba intentioni, non e contra, debent inservire : (Co. Litt. 36.)—Liberal constructions of written documents are to be 645 made, because of the simplicity of the laity, and with a view to carry out the intention of the parties and uphold the 646 document; and words ought to be made subservient, not contrary, to the intention.13/100 647 The Wallers home can be accounted for as the freehold property31 ‘East Park’ the demesne farm of Uffculme: 648 The following in italics, are very brief clips for illustrative sequence only; the complete Portland Papers provide much more. 649 17th March 1336 650 King Edward III special licence to enclose & free warren 651 …to enclose and make a park of his wood of Ufcolme, co. Devon, and the 300 acres of land, meadow and pasture adjacent thereto, and to hold 652 the said park and manor to him and his heirs without let or hinderance of the king and his heirs or any of their ministers… …of special grace, 653 to the said Richard and Mary his wife of free warren in all their … demesne lands of … Ufcolm, co. Devon. Also that no one may enter these 654 lands to hunt or take anything pertaining to the warren without the licence and permission of… or their heirs… 655 17th June 1587 656 Portland Papers 657 …East Parkes containing by estimation fiftie acres… … East Parkes or Lower Parkes containing by estimation twelve acres divided by a 658 river… …also fishing, hawking and hunting Sigs. and seals (1 armorial) of (1). 17 June 29 Eliz. I. Parch. 659 ~ 1608 ~ 660 Hath [indemnified] granted and to […] Seisin and by the right pure doth demyse grant and to [farm] lett unto the said Thomas Hynson all 661 those parcels of land pasture and meadow [with appurtenances commonly called or known by the name of East Parkes containing by estimation 662 fiftie acres formally in the tenement or occupation of one Wm Woodroff or of his assignee or assignees And all those parcels of land and 663 meadow comonly also called or known by the name of East Parkes or Lower Parkes containing by estimation twelve acres divided by a 664 river…hath by free right granted unto the said Thomas Hynson free libertie and authority of fishing in any the rivers or waters within the 665 Manor aforesaid and also of hawking and hunting in all and every place and places within the said Manor to have and to hold
28 Life owner! The Finance Act 1910 documents provide a fulcrum of untenable fact, a statutory survey c9 years after Mr Parkhouse died. 29 Ins’ Slade’s report is untenable; I raised the legal implications of ‘shooting across a public path’, & not towards the main public roads quite clearly during the inquiry 2nd Oct 2012 is clearly recorded: [01:55:50 “Next question.”] — constant interjections & unreasonableness. 30 Donn’s 1765 Map of Devon records the seats & parishes of Devon; 18th ― 20th century Poor Laws evidence; Tithe Act 1836; Finance Act 1909-10; local authority evidence. A most significant fraud involves selectivity in provision & usage of 1934 Parish Map, re 1932 Act. 31 Lord Advocate v. Lord Blantyre (1879) 4 App Cas 770. Lord Advocate v. Lord Lovat (1880) 5 App Cas 273 1880-01-01 Lord O'Hagan
Page 14 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 15 of 34
666 ~ 1633 ~ 667 This Indenture made on the Twentieth day of April in the ninth year of the Raign of [our] Sovereign Lord by the grant of God (?) of England 668 Scotland… ...and first defender of the faith Anno Dmi 1633 Between the Right Hon Edward Earle of Bath of the one part And Dame 669 Martha Button of Tawstock in the County of Devon… 670 Mid 1st page: 671 …grant unto [the] said Dame Martha Button All and singular those Messuages Lands Tenements and Hereditaments with their 672 appurtenances together with all [outhouses] [Gardens] Meadows […] Pastures Feedings Ways Paths [...] Commons and Wasts to the 673 premisses Belonging or in […] assigning, lying and being in Uffculme in the said County of Devon late in the tenure of or occupation of… 674 …use or occupation of the said Dame Martha Button as Administrating of Wm Hinson Esquire […] her assignee or assignees right or rights 675 To have and to hold all and singular the said Messuages Lands Tenements and other the privileges with their appurtenances unto the said 676 Dame Martha Button… 677 Mid 2nd Page 678 …And also after the commitment of the said term will and wilfully repairing upholding sustaining and maintaining all singular the premises 679 aforesaid with the appurtenance and every park and gate thereof as will in the houses [halls] and courtings as in Hedges Ditches Gates Barriers 680 and Fences and in all other needfull […] impediment whatsoever all her his and their own proper cost and charges during the said terms and 681 in… 682 In 1644, when the manor belonged to Henry, Earl of Bath, the farm of the fishing and hunting was held by Henry Ashford, esq. at the will 683 of the lord. 684 ~ 1658 ~ 685 All those His Tenements and Lands Called East parks and low parks…in Ufcolum in the County of Devon aforesaid…with al buildings Trees 686 and appurtenances whatsoever to them belonging, And al His right title Interest claim and demand whatsoever in and to the premisses 687 aforesaid,… 688 Cuicunque aliquis quid concedit concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potuit : (11 Co. 52.)—The grantor of 689 anything to another, grants that also without which the thing granted would be useless.22/100 690 East Park 50 acres, & East or Lower Park 12 acres divided by river appears to have taken the name Five Fords Farm when its 691 occupation was that of Alexander Melhuish, his will of 1681; ownership came to Madam Walrond in the early 18th century. 692 Manerium dicitur à manendo, secundum excellentiam, sedes magna, fixa et stabilis : (Co. Litt. 58.)—A manor is called from 693 "manendo" a seat, according to its excellence, great, fixed, and firm.416/800
694 Donn’s 1765 Map of Devon was created to record the heraldic : manorial seats and parishes of Devon. Not the farmyards!32 695 Ownership of Five Fords Barton is traced back to the middle 9th century, appear non-residential until the Spragues in 1955. 696 There is no justification for the Travelling-forum to have omitted the bridleway from Northcott to Brookshill within their 697 deplorable submissions re the three paths within Finance Act 1909-10. One ignorant of the history of the area could claim 698 any 3 of the 7 paths33 * in the area as those listed in the F-Act 1909-10. There’re too many discrepancies of bias, illustrative 699 of the Travelling-forum & Parish Council’s activities of conspiracy since 1980 regarding the private paths in the area. [*9]
700 At present the first (currently known) document to record Richard Smith, a London Gent whose local residence was Wimple 701 near Honiton, is the Land Tax documents of 1780-1815. The John Rennie 1794 Canal Plan Identifies 75% of the closes 702 belonging to Richard Smith that encompass Violet Lane, the 25% deficiency is accounted for as being ‘off plan’; one of the 703 banking partners of the Clarke Family of Bridwell Court, Mr Smith held the sporting rights of Honiton Manor (Devon).
704 The Clarke Family were the principle land owners north of the River Culm from the area of Prescott to Halberton/Willand. 705 Parish Minutes 11th January 1908 identifies regard for the ‘Sporting Rights’ within, but nothing more. This is most 706 significant to the Schedule 14 Application pursued. Ownership after Richard Smith: James Townsend owner Five Fords and 707 Brooks House 1822 -1832; William Nation’s last entry is within the John Leversedge’s Overseers for the Poor survey 708 documentation record book & map 1852. — & so it is unless ‘proven to the contrary’, that the Portland Papers dominate.
32 G Percy Trentham Ltd v. Gloucestershire County Council" Diplock LJ: the absurdity of Dutch barns being called 'repositories' 33 For simplicity I have purposefully not raised the issue here, regarding Hunkin Wood Field holding 2 separate estates according to common law: Five Fords, & Brookshill, within the will of James Parkhouse, 6th December 1900: all that Estate called “Five Fords and Brookshill” situated in the Parishes of Uffculme and Culmstock Devon for her life…” The following authority is simple when applied to the acreage recorded in the documents of seisin. Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Navigation (Proprietors) v. Birmingham Canal Navigation (Proprietors) (1866) LR 1HL 254. [Miss Joyce] “…did not have the power to grant the easement.”
Page 15 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 16 of 34
709 The Overseers for the Poor and tithe apportionments are well documented from 1742. Acreage of Five Fords is provided 710 from 1833, as it is in 1837, [Tithe 1840], 1851, 1852, 1895, the Finance Act 1910: “62½” acres of agricultural land, and in 711 the Overseers Land Valuation book of 1907-1918. How on God’s earth can the above ^ be an unclassified county road???
712 Various figures are shown but when the respective accounts are made they balance at the higher side of 62 acres. Using all 713 available evidence, inclusive of the hereditament* marking on John Leversedge’s overseers survey map of 1852 (* intrinsic 714 to the survey) the 50 acres of East Park identified within the translated documents of 1587, and 20th September 1608, all 715 record above* 50 acres [*between c½ & ¾ of an acre]. This is most significant because within its met lies Violet Lane & the 716 current [Edward Beedell’s Old Dairy] path in question. These paths were the arteries of the adjoined farming business of 1878.
717 Read Inspector Helen Slade’s report of 19th October 2012, her predisposition i.e., her satisfying a claim for Wednesbury- 718 unreasonable, is demonstrated by the sophistry & silence re the combined farm imbalanced reporting, and vilifying the 719 value of Finance Act 1910 evidence. Her doing so, for all is recorded, provides the cogent evidence necessary for conviction. 720 Morrell v. Fisher (1849) Exch 591, If there be an adequate and sufficient description – a later erroneous addition will not vitiate it.
721 James Parkhouse’s ownership between 1852 & first recorded in 1860; he built his cart-house : linhay in 1867; the current 722 ownership is based upon his will of 6th December 1900: “…all that estate called Five Fords and Brookshill’ situated in the 723 parishes of Uffculme and Culmstock Devon for her life for her sole and separate use and benefit independently of any 724 husband and without any power of anticipation by sale, mortgage charge or otherwise and from and after the decease….”
725 Five Fords Farm’s position integral to Uffculme Manor history is well documented. RD Bevan understood its heritage, whilst 726 fulfilling his contractual obligation to survey the parish of Uffculme re the Tithe Act 1836, as did Mr Hurley because he 727 claimed his appurtenance as Lord of the Manor Uffculme. Hence the two tithe districts; and open egress at Five Fords.
728 There requires explanation on how or why, in 1867, James built his linhay on a public highway that is later deemed 729 agricultural land in the 62½ acres of agricultural land recorded within No. 542 of the IR58/4594 Finance Act 1909-10 730 Valuers Field Book matching the estimated 62 acres of the 1587 Duke of Portland Papers (Hinson & Button).— Mr Coombs 731 clearly lacks any credible knowledge re the Tithe & Finance Acts34. — I questioned Mr Coombs’s silence re the 44½ acres 732 of 213 & 214 : Brookshill, part of Five Fords in IR58/4594. — There are too many gaps in his evaluation of hereditaments.
733 There is an abundance of dictionaries and documents that define Barton explicit to Devon’s manorial properties. Likewise 734 the meaning of road, such as those in Johnson’s 1755 & 1800 Dictionaries is reassured within the Finance Act 1909-10 735 referees appeal papers, Mrs Parsons had lost the plot, drowning herself in foolish sophistry about the surface of the water.
736 But Mr Millman’s mind was closed on the 17th Sept 2007, before the 18th — was fully aware of my making comparison with 737 the tithe map and apportionments recording Bradfield Barton, he had seen both map and apportionments (clear photos of) to 738 see the identical features35. He was Wednesbury-Unreasonable and quite willing to write his fraudulent misrepresentations 739 within reports accordingly. Sophistry is the common ground between DEFRA’s agent provocateurs, & their own inspectors.
740 Clearly the BHS representative trotting home during the lunch break of the second Violet Lane Inquiry, to retrieve the 1918 741 OS map, did on return bring with her, issue regarding Bradfield Barton apportionments, the content are quite explicate, one 742 only need look at the three main entrances [Photos are provided within the history document*] to see what is depicted within 743 the Bradfield Tithe Commission accepted apportionments. *Visit www.TitheAct.co.uk 744 Giles Jacob; The New Law Dictionary; Sixth Edition 1750: Barton, is a word used in Devonshire, for the Demesne Lands of a Manor; 745 sometimes for the Manor-House itself 746 Barton: Legal definition of Barton applicable to the written language relative to tithes: 747 [To assist pronunciation of demesne: it is pronounced ‘demain’ (with an ‘e’)] 748 Demesne: The land of a manor was divided into parts; demesne land, which was the lord’s portion and cultivated for his own use and 749 common land held by the peasantry under him. 750 The Law-Dictionary by Sir Thomas Edlyne Tomlins of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law 1820 751 BARTON, or BURTON, a word used in Devonshire for the demesne lands of the manor; sometimes the manor house itself 752 Barton: the medieval name for a small manor house
34 This was clearly & irrefutably proven on the 2nd & 3rd October 2012; his wilful ignorance to historical common law & truth is untenable. 35 Including the absolute recorded acreage of 71a 1r 36p - 8a 3r 30p = 62a 2r 1p; is the same as the Finance Act 1910: 62½ acres.
Page 16 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 17 of 34
753 Barton \Bar"ton\, n. [AS. beret?n courtyard, grange; bere barley + an inclosure.] 754 1. The demesne lands of a manor; also, the manor itself. [Eng.] 755 --Burton. 756 2. A farmyard. [Eng.] 757 --Southey. 758 Rapalje, Stewart, 1843-1896. 759 A dictionary of American and English law: with definitions of the technical terms of the canon and civil laws; also, containing a full 760 collection of Latin maxims and citations of upwards of forty thousand reported cases in which words and phrases have been judicially 761 defined or construed / by Stewart Rapalje and Robert L. Lawrence. 762 Originally published: Jersey City, N˖J˖ : F˖ D, Linn, 1888. 763 ISBN 1-886363-33-1 Third Reprinting 2002 764 Barton.– In old English law (in Devonshire especially), the demesne lands of a manor; sometimes the manor house itself; also an 765 outhouse or fold yard.– Burrill. 766 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Revised ED (1856) (bouvier). Barton, old English law. The demesne land of a manor; a farm distinct from the 767 mansion. 768 The Etymological Dictionary of the English Language 1879-1882 769 Barton, a courtyard, manor; used in provincial English [i.e. Shire, Hundred / Manor-hundred and manor] 770 Homestead, a dwelling-place, mansion-house, with its enclosures 771 Grange, a farmhouse 772 1913 Webster: 1. The demesne lands of a manor; also, the manor itself. (Copy enclosed in my 3rd submission prior to the Sept’ 07 Inquiry) 773 1959 Dictionary of English Law, general editor Earl Jowitt, Lord Chancellor of Great Britain 1945 – 1951 774 Edited by Clifford Walsh, LL.M Solicitor of the Supreme Court 775 [Founded on Byrne’s Law Dictionary (1923) and the fourteenth edition of Wharton’s Law Lexicon (1938) …thoroughly revised and 776 brought up to date. …primarily a dictionary… …a compact encyclopaedia of law……and index to the whole of English law. 777 Barton, Berton, Burton…In the statute of 1548, 2 & 3 Edw. 6, c. 12, “demesne or barton lands” are treated as synonymous terms; but 778 the word “barton” may mean also the manorhouse itself… 779 Oxford English Dictionary Modern sense: The OED Online main entry: 1. A threshing-floor, 2. A farm-yard, 3. A demesne farm; the 780 demesne lands of a manor, not let out to tenants but retained for the lord’s own use — Mr Millman’s using the modern sense is untenable.36
781 In simple terms, the synergy of abusing statues such as the Wildlife & Countryside (W & C) Act 1981; Cycle tracks Act 1985; the 782 W & C (Definitive Maps & Statements) Regulations 1993, and Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act 2000), and R of W 783 Improvement Plans (ROIPS) ― has created a greater interest in procuring further PROWs. ― By 2005 chaos prevailed: 784 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1480246/Ministers-to-open-thousands-of-ancient-tracks-on-private-land.html 785 Ministers to open thousands of ancient tracks on private land [Ɉ: The following article has been edited to retain only the key facts.] 786 Thousands of miles of ancient and defunct tracks across private land – some which have lain forgotten for 500 years – are to be reopened to 787 the public at a cost of £20 million. 788 Researchers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will record every path, track and byway listed in public 789 archives and, if no record can be found of the route being legally closed, it will be reinstated. Many of the tracks will be open to 4x4 790 vehicles. 791 The aim of the "Discovering Lost Ways Project" is to record every defunct highway by 2026 – the cut-off date for recording rights of way 792 under right-to-roam legislation introduced earlier this year. Ministers argue that the public will benefit because more paths will be available 793 for walking and other recreational activities. 794 However, landowners have attacked the project claiming that it will lead to thousands of irrelevant tracks being opened to vehicles with 795 adverse consequences for farmland and livestock. 796 The Countryside Agency, which is carrying out the research for the Government, has selected Wiltshire and Cheshire as pilot areas, with 797 the project to be rolled out across the country from next year. It estimates that up to 20,000 unrecorded rights of way will be discovered – a 798 nine per cent increase in the current network – amounting to 16,000 miles of new footpaths, bridleways and byways, 1,600 miles of which 799 are likely to be byways "open to all walkers, cyclists, riders and motor vehicles", under current highway law. 800 "The researchers are going back as far as they can, which means looking at maps and old church tithe records from as long ago as 1500," 801 he said. "Under the current legislation, if a route is found to have been used by horses and carts hundreds of years ago, and there is no 802 evidence of legal closure, the only way we can record it is as a byway for use by all traffic. 803 "We already have about 400 miles of byways in Wiltshire and the 4x4 drivers tend to take advantage of that."
36 Rational commonsense tells us that Mr Millman’s usage of the modern sense for Tithe Act 1836 documents of 1840-41 is irrational.
Page 17 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 18 of 34
804 Alun Michael, the rural affairs minister, said that the project would encourage more people to visit the countryside. "Historic routes are a 805 priceless and fascinating part of our heritage," he said. 806 "I am delighted that we now have a structured and systematic way of tracking down the lost ways so that they can be recorded for 807 everyone's benefit." 808 A spokesman for Defra said: "The Government recognises that conflict may result in cases where the research produces evidence of 809 previously undiscovered vehicular rights on routes that have not been used by motor vehicles, or indeed any vehicles, for many years." 810 And so it was that people started to award themselves the title “Researcher of Lost Ways” fantasy had now set in. Both Mrs 811 Rudge and Mrs Parsons would affix this title to their résumés, the question some may ask: 812 “Is that a fraudulent misrepresentation?” 813 The Travelling-forum’s provision of ‘Proofs of Evidence’ is worrying. To anyone seeking to approach researching lost ways 814 in the future, consider visiting the British Medical Association’s website for the document titled ‘Expert Witness Guidance: 815 http://www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/Acting_as_an_expert_witness.pdf 816 Produced in July 2008, it’s as if someone heard me screaming! [See table of content of third document to PIB dated 24th July 2012]
817 The dominant factor against the main providers of historical evidence, e.g. the four members of the Travelling-forum, in 818 support of the Order is their lack of integrity, and their inability to act with dignity, for all is pomp and malicious self 819 gratification. Some most remarkable events of re-writing the Culm Valley’s history would occur from the heretics of this 820 foursome; remarkable because the Julie Rudge, Jenny Parsons and Emily Spurway partnership, in close association with Mr 821 Roy Coombs, provides us with a cogent quantity evil from which it is unlikely that their credibility will ever recover. 822 The Proof of Evidence introduction of Mrs Emily Spurway provided for the 18th September 2007 was out of time by 2 823 weeks, there appears not only an intentional delay to hinder the defending parties (the PIBs forwarding/posting after the w- 824 end), but a waiting for DEFRA. [By the 18th of July 2008 it was evident that any deceit in the following required exposure.] 825 “1.1 My name is Emily Spurway, I am employed by the Devon County Council in the Environment Directorate as a Public Rights of Way 826 Officer and I am responsible for the review of the Definitive Map in the eastern half of Mid Devon. The review of the Definitive 827 Map and Statement is carried out on a parish by parish basis. My employment involves the Investigation, analysis and 828 interpretation of historic, documentary, user and landowner evidence in the consideration of the existence and status of unrecorded 829 public rights of way. I am a Full Member of the Institute of Public Rights of Way Officers.” 830 Equally, we can compare the role of Mrs Parsons the Bridleways Officer for the BHS in similar light to [DCC ES 1.1] from 831 the following: 832 Objector Number 48 in the City & County of Swansea Unitary Development Plan Inquiry; February 2007 by G Bligh County Access 833 and Bridleways Officer for the British Horse Society …. The British Horse Society is Britain’s leading equestrian membership 834 organization and largely serves the leisure riding public. It is also the governing body for professional qualifications for those 835 wishing to teach in the horse industry. The specific aims of the Society are central to equine welfare. The BHS achieves these by 836 constantly striving towards improved knowledge through education, training and advice.
837 Make riding a safer activity, including riding on the roads. 838 Improve access to safer off-road riding routes in the countryside and urban green space for the riding and driving public. 839 1) Working towards maintaining and improving current rights of way (bridleways, byways, unclassified roads and multi user routes). 840 2) Securing new rights of way. 841 3) Working towards maintaining and improving permissive routes and negotiating new permissive routes. 842 4) Working to bring back into use the nation’s heritage of ancient routes not accurately recorded as bridleways or byways. 843 5) Supporting claims for equestrian rights of way for inclusion on the definitive map. 844 6) Publishing routes and information on recreational riding. 845 7) Acting as a statutory consultee on all change to public rights of way. 846 The membership and organization of the Society is run by approximately 90 permanent staff employed by the Society who are based at 847 Stoneleigh in Warwickshire and Development Officers who work in the regions. At local level volunteers do all the work and organise 848 regional committees and national policy making committees.
849 What of the overassertive dogmatic, self pontificating Cllr/Mrs Rudge : her character is a malignant unbenign scourge acting 850 against any truth. She wasn’t at the Inquiries, whether her explanations re holiday and husband’s illness may be true or false, 851 is immaterial, her submissions provide excellent examples of fraudulent hearsay, and deceit from an evil interfering 852 busybody. It is frightening to know that these tricksters are allowed to pervert the course of justice during their expropriating.
Page 18 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 19 of 34
853 Having presented herself as what some would perceive/expect to be an ‘expert witness’37 within her submission of the 9th 854 September 2007; her contemptuous arrogance was effectively at full throttle according to the parameters of stealth. Neither 855 Mrs Rudge or her fellow conspirators have shown the requisite veracity to ever fall into the category of expert witness. For 856 her to endorse Mr Coombs’s, prior to her letter of the 9th illustrates her seeing the evidence on the 9th or before, to endorse it; 857 Mr Coombs provided a handout at the Inquiry of 18th Sept, inclusive of references to points of law & statutes, but nothing 858 prior. When you compare the collusive plagiarising and interwoven frauds working in synergy to frustrate the defending 859 parties: Regina v. Ryder [1994] and Regina v. Vreones (1891) and Re K (Infants) [1963] Ch 381 & [1965] AC 201: events unfair! 860 9th Sept 2007: 3) I have read Devon County Council’s proof of evidence, Mrs. Jenny Parson’s evidence on behalf of the British Horse 861 Society and Mr. Roy Coombs’ evidence for the Trail Riders Fellowship as well as the correspondence which has been forwarded from the 862 Planning Inspectorate. In the light of this, and on behalf of the Trust, I believe that the evidence indicates the route, Violet Lane, to have at 863 least Bridleway status from its use by the public over the years and with an indication of Restricted Byway status existing from the 864 documentary evidence. The Trust therefore supports bridleway status and the possibility of Restricted Byway status for the Order route, 865 Violet Lane. 866 Which by all accounts amounts to endorsing her own work; because the submissions that she has read and refers to, are those 867 of her accomplices referring to her work; — therefore on the evidence she provided, she is placed equally incompetent and 868 calculating as the persons that she endorses. This takes us back to the Cripple Lane debacle of justice. Uffculme is notorious 869 for its Shamble’s, but the public must know, be able to know (one) shameful carnage, from another; those: ‘the Town’s folk, 870 the Upper quarter, the Bradfield Quarter and the Craddock Quarter’ should not be deceived by the sophistry of heretics. 871 The frauds surrounding the 1940s local authority records provision are incredulous acts by those whose only policy is distort 872 the truth. The question that is ever in my mind, is, ‘Do they get a sadistic satisfaction from their evil & illicit activities?’.
873 The damage that these fraudsters cause to the moral and community values of society is best defined by the words of Sir 874 David Edward’s: ‘Sir Michael Davies Lecture : Evidence, Proof, Fact-Finding and the Expert Witness’ within he states: 875 “A good expert is essential to the administration of justice. Sadly, an overassertive dogmatic expert is a danger, not just to the administration 876 of justice, but to the credibility of the legal system as a whole. But I am confident that in reality, these are by far the exceptions.” 877 …What is the role of the expert in this context? As the name of this Institute implies, the expert is essentially a witness. It is true that the 878 rules of evidence and the rules of procedure draw a distinction between the ordinary witness and the expert witness. It is also true that the 879 status of the expert has changed over the years and that there is an increasing tendency of the courts, particularly as a result of the Woolf 880 Reforms, to rely on a single expert or to look for an expert who can, as it were, help the court to assess a conflict of expert evidence between the 881 experts on either side. Nonetheless, at the end of the day the expert remains a witness like all other witnesses. 882 Sir David Edward’s as guest speaker at the Expert Witness Institute - 29 April 2004 - 7th Sir Michael Davies Lecture 883 Sir David Edward’s presentations are most interesting, but the shambolic show trials of DEFRA necessitate the 884 provision of a judicial a comparator, one that provides brevity by comparison to DEFRA’s Definitive Map Order 885 (DMO) guidance. [See the document ‘Lost Ways ― DEFRA’s Unlawful Conspiracies’] 886 The following authorities confer: 887 Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582; [1957] 2 All ER 118 888 QBD, McNair J; Professional Negligence 889 Where some special skill is exercised, the test for negligence is not the test of the man on the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this 890 special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising or professing to have that special skill. It is the duty of a 891 professional man to exercise reasonable skill and care in the light of his actual knowledge and whether he exercised reasonable care cannot 892 be answered by reference to a lesser degree of knowledge than he had, on the grounds that the ordinary competent practitioner would only 893 have had that lesser degree of knowledge. This is not a gloss upon the test of negligence as applied to a professional man. That test is only 894 to be applied where the professional man causes damage because he lacks some knowledge or awareness. The test establishes the degree of 895 knowledge or awareness which he ought to have in that context. Where, however, a professional man has knowledge, and acts or fails to 896 act in way which, having that knowledge he ought reasonably to foresee would cause damage, then, if the other aspects of duty are present, 897 he would be liable in negligence by virtue of the direct application of Lord Atkins' original test in Donoghue v Stevenson. "it is not enough 898 to show that another expert would have given a different answer. . the issue is . . whether [the defendant] has acted in accordance with 899 practices which are regarded as acceptable by a respectable body of opinion in his profession" and "How do you test whether this act or 900 failure is negligent? In an ordinary case it is generally said you judge it by the action of the man in the street. He is the ordinary man . . But 901 where you get a situation which involves some special skill or competence, then the test of whether there has been negligence or not is not 902 the test of the man on the top of the Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary 903 skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill."
37 Lonhro Plc and Others v. Fayed and Others (No 5) [1993] 1 WLR 1489"… [N]o one has a right to a reputation which is unmerited.
Page 19 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 20 of 34
904 Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd (1964) AC 465 — created the rule of "reasonable reliance" by the claimant on the 905 skills of the defendant. 906 "Where a person is so placed that others could reasonably rely upon his judgment or his skill or upon his ability to make careful 907 inquiry, and a person takes it upon himself to give information or advice to, or allows his information or advice to be relied on to, 908 another person who, as he knows or should know, will place reliance upon it, then a duty of care will arise." 909 Actions nominally based on Hedley Byrne by definition include negligent acts or omissions, even though the ratio decidendi of Hedley 910 Byrne was cast in terms of liability for statements. In Caparo Industries plc. v Dickman (1990) 2 AC 605 the criteria for a duty of care in 911 giving advice were stated in more restricted terms: 912 "What can be deduced from the Hedley Byrne case, therefore, is that the necessary relationship between the maker of a statement 913 or giver of advice (the adviser) and the recipient who acts in reliance on it (the advisee) may typically be held to exist where (1) 914 the advice is required for a purpose, whether particularly specified or generally described, which is made known, either actually 915 or inferentially, to the adviser at the time when the advice is given, (2) the adviser knows, either actually or inferentially, that his 916 advice will be communicated to the advisee, either specifically or as a member of an ascertainable class, in order that it should be 917 used by the advisee for that purpose, (3) it is known, either actually or inferentially, that the advice so communicated is likely to 918 be acted on by the advisee for that purpose without independent inquiry and (4) it is so acted on by the advisee to his detriment." 919 Following Caparo, the Court of Appeal in James McNaughton Papers Group Ltd. v Hicks Anderson & Co. (1991) 1 AER 134 adopted a 920 more restricted approach, focusing in the adviser's actual and constructive knowledge of the purpose for which the statement was made. 921 Thus, the duty was to be limited to transactions or types of transactions where the adviser knew or ought to have known that the advisee 922 would rely on the statement in connection with that transaction without obtaining independent advice. It also had to be shown that the 923 advisee did in fact reasonably rely on the statement without using his own judgment or obtaining independent advice. In Henderson v 924 Merrett Syndicates Ltd. the Lords reasserted the underlying principle that liability under Hedley Byrne was a voluntary assumption of 925 responsibility for performing the given task by a person rendering professional or quasi-professional services irrespective of whether there 926 was a contractual relationship between the parties. 927 Regina v. Sweet Escott [1971] 55 Cr App R 316; BD; Lawton J 928 There are limits as to what may be put to a witness by way of cross-examination as to credit. "What, then, is the principle upon which the 929 judge should draw the line? It seems to me that it is this. Since the purpose of cross-examination as to credit is to show that the witness 930 ought not to be believed on oath, the matters about which he is questioned must relate to his likely standing after cross-examination with 931 the tribunal which is trying him or listening to his evidence." 932 Regina v. Turner [1975] QB 834; 60 Cr App R 80, Lawton LJ 933 "An expert's opinion is admissible to furnish the court with scientific information which is likely to be outside the experience and 934 knowledge of a judge or jury. If on the proven facts a judge or jury can form their own conclusions without help, then the opinion of an 935 expert is unnecessary. In such a case, if it is just out of the scientific jargon, it may make judgment more difficult." 936 John Pierce v Her Majesty's Advocate 1981 SCLR 783; Lord Justice-General (Lord Emslie) Criminal Practice, Evidence, Scotland 937 A forensic scientist had been called as an expert witness at a criminal trial. He had made an unjustified assumption but had not disclosed 938 the making of the assumption to the court. Held: The court concluded that the witness had been discredited, not only as a scientist, but also 939 as a witness upon the accuracy, fairness and objectivity and of whose evidence reliance could be placed: "This was in our judgment, 940 conduct on the part of an expert witness which demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the role of scientific witnesses in the Courts, 941 and a lack of the essential qualities of accuracy and scientific objectivity which are normally to be taken for granted." 942 Regina v. Bonython [1984] 38 SASR 45; Criminal Practice, Commonwealth 943 (South Australia Supreme Court) The court considered the basis for deciding whether a proposed witness was an expert. Held: It is for the 944 judge to determine whether a witness is competent to give evidence as an expert and for that purpose there are two questions for the judge 945 to decide: "The first is whether the subject matter of the opinion falls within the class of subjects upon which expert testimony is 946 permissible. This . . may be divided into two parts: 947 (a) whether the subject matter of the opinion is such that a person without instruction or experience in the area of knowledge or human 948 experience would be able to form a sound judgment on the matter without the assistance of witnesses possessing special knowledge or 949 experience in the area, and 950 (b) whether the subject matter of the opinion forms part of a body of knowledge or experience which is sufficiently organised or recognised 951 to be accepted as a reliable body of knowledge or experience, a special acquaintance with which by the witness would render his opinion of 952 assistance to the court. 953 The second question is whether the witness has acquired by study or experience sufficient knowledge of the subject to render his opinion of 954 value in resolving the issues before the court. [The author places great emphasis on the prevaricatory methods of the travelling-forum.] 955 An investigation of the methods used by the witness in arriving at his opinion may be pertinent, in certain circumstances, to the answers to 956 both the above questions . . Where the witness possesses the relevant formal qualifications to express an opinion on the subject, an 957 investigation on the voir dire of his methods will rarely be permissible on the issue of his qualifications. 958 There may be greater scope for such examination where the alleged qualifications depended upon experience or informal studies... 959 Generally speaking, once the qualifications are established, the methodology will be relevant to the weight of the evidence and not to the 960 competence of the witness to express an opinion..."
Page 20 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 21 of 34
961 Polivitte Ltd v. Commercial Union Assurance Co plc [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep 379 962 Garland J; Litigation Practice, Torts – Other. An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the court by way of objective 963 unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise. 964 Both the Civil Evidence Act 1995, and Statutory Instrument No. 3263 (1994) TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES were in force 20th 965 April 2007, but we should refer to the Inquiries Act 2005 & Fraud Act 2006 in synergy with the Godmanchester findings. 966 Anglo Group Plc, Winther Brown & Co Ltd v. Winter Brown & Co Ltd, BML (Office Computers) Ltd, Anglo Group Plc, BML 967 (Office Computers) Ltd [2000] EWHC Technology 127 968 TCC 8 Mar 2000 [The Technology & Construction Court] Toulmin QC J; Litigation Practice, Contract, Agencies 969 Contract - Contract for provision of computer services - purchaser contract with finance company - duty of co-operation to be implied in 970 computer contracts - practice - responsibilities of expert witnesses generally - whether computer company liable to purchaser - whether 971 purchaser liable to finance company. 972 The parties disputed the delivery and quality of a computer system. The buyer complained of many defects and eventually sought to reject 973 the system. Held: Anglo's claim succeeded. The court provided updated Ikarian Reefer guidelines for expert witnesses. The court criticised 974 one expert witness for failing to keep separate his role as negotiator and witness. It is normally inappropriate to seek to combine the two. 975 The court gave Ikarian Reefer guidelines updated to comply with the CPR: 976 "1.An expert witness should at all stages in the procedure, on the basis of the evidence as he understands it, provide independent assistance 977 to the court and the parties by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise. This applies as much to the 978 initial meetings of experts as to evidence at trial. An expert witness should never assume the role of an advocate. 979 2. The expert's evidence should normally be confined to technical matters on which the court will be assisted by receiving an explanation, 980 or to evidence of common professional practice. The expert witness should not give evidence or opinions as to what the expert himself 981 would have done in similar circumstances or otherwise seek to usurp the role of the judge. 982 3.He should co-operate with the expert of the other party or parties in attempting to narrow the technical issues in dispute at the earliest 983 possible stage of the procedure and to eliminate or place in context any peripheral issues. He should co-operate with the other expert(s) in 984 attending without prejudice meetings as necessary and in seeking to find areas of agreement and to define precisely arrears of disagreement 985 to be set out in the joint statement of experts ordered by the court. 986 4.The expert evidence presented to the court should be, and be seen to be, the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or 987 content by the exigencies of the litigation. 988 5.An expert witness should state the facts or assumptions upon which his opinion is based. He should not omit to consider material facts 989 which could detract from his concluded opinion. 990 6.An expert witness should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside his expertise. 991 7.Where an expert is of the opinion that his conclusions are based on inadequate factual information he should say so explicitly. 992 8.An expert should be ready to reconsider his opinion, and if appropriate, to change his mind when he has received new information or has 993 considered the opinion of the other expert. He should do so at the earliest opportunity."
994 Daniels v. Walker 17 May 2000 CA 995 Human Rights, Litigation Practice Counsel should not advance arguments under the Human Rights legislation which were without merit, 996 and judges should be robust in rejecting references without merit. Where one party was unhappy with a joint expert's report, he should 997 nevertheless be free to appoint his own further expert in order to have a fair trial.
998 I apply the following because the facts prove numerous but easy to comprehend frauds in the withholding/suppression of the 999 BHS’s 60 page document. They can be reduced to three groups: collusion within, equality of arms, and to avoid exposure. 1000 Secretary of State for Health v. C [2003] EWCA Civ 10 — is most applicable to Mrs Rudge’s endorsing of fraud. 1001 CA 2003-01-01, Evidence, The absence of a defendant without any reason being given may entitle the tribunal to conclude that the 1002 defendant did not consider that his account would survive oral examination. Smelter Corporation v. O'Driscoll [1977] IR 307 Torts – 1003 Other (Ireland) In an action for misrepresentation, it did not matter that the representation was made by an agent who did not know that the 1004 representation was untrue.
1005 Concealment BHS 60 page document: Ladd v. Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489; [1954] 3 All ER 745; [1954] EWCA Civ 1: 1006 1: availability of evidence at first instance — 2: significant influence on events — 3: sophistry & deceit contained within. 1007 Bayliss, Regina (on the Application of) v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] EWHC 245 (Admin) Crime 1008 The defendant was arrested in Tesco’s. On being searched he was found to have a lock knife. He had placed it in his belt and forgotten 1009 about it. He appealed conviction saying it had not been shown that he knew he still had the knife. Held: Forgetfulness did not break the 1010 possession so as to excuse it. That he may have had a good reason to have the knife with him on one day, and not to have a good reason on 1011 the day after was a decision by the justices which they were entitled to find. Statutes: | Criminal Justice Act 1988 139(1) 1012 Chahal v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] EWHC 439 (Admin) [2010] ACD 42 [2010] 2 Cr App R 5 1013 2010-02-24 Laws LJ, McCombe J; Crime 1014 The defendant appealed against his conviction for possession of a bladed article. He had used the knife at work and forgotten to leave it at 1015 work and had it in his pocket by accident. Held: The appeal succeeded. The defendant had been accepted as a truthful witness, and "In my 1016 judgment that is a broad factual test for the tribunal of fact, providing it bears in mind that forgetfulness, without some other good reason to
Page 21 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 22 of 34
1017 support it, will not, of itself, entitle the accused to the benefit of the defence. The defendant needs to go further and demonstrate what the 1018 reason was for the knife being where it was." and "the justices here appear to have been misled into thinking that the casual nature of the 1019 appellant's work deprived him of good reason without more, when the real question was whether the appellant had genuinely had a good 1020 reason for having the knife, and had then genuinely forgotten about it; and that in so far as he had the article with him when recollection 1021 was restored he still had a good reason for having it with him." Statutes: | Criminal Justice Act 1988 139
1022 During their Logical Inconsistencies Applying Regular Evidences Speciously @ Inquiries (LIAREs @ Inquiries© James Field 21 1023 July 2010) to conceal the truth (Intentional prevarication & conspiracy to defraud.), they appear to have received every 1024 conceivable assistance to cheat from the entryism & jobbery antagonists employed within* the Planning Inspectorate and 1025 DEFRA to corruptly affect the defence of any legitimate land owners seeking to protect their property. [*Land Registry!] 1026 SPhilip Gerald Stanton; Sylvia Mary Stanton v. Brian F Callaghan; Brian F Callaghan & Associates (a Firm); Brian F Callaghan 1027 and Partners (a Firm) [2000] 1 QB 75 [1998] EWCA Civ 1176 CA 1998-07-08; Otton LJ, Nourse LJ; Professional Negligence 1028 Where an expert gave a report for the purposes of proceedings, but later changed it after meeting with the other side's expert at a pre-trial 1029 meeting, he had immunity from negligence since his first duty as an expert was to the court. An actual not a defensive view was needed 1030 from him. The protection of the immunity is available even if the trial does not take place. Otton LJ: "immunity is not granted primarily for 1031 the benefit of the individuals who seek it. They themselves are beneficiaries of the overarching public interest, which can be expressed as 1032 the need to ensure that the administration of justice is not impeded. This is the consideration which should be paramount. And it is not only 1033 the conduct of the immediate hearing which we should consider to be the "administration of justice". This is not a narrowly drawn phrase; 1034 it is best served by a purposive construction. " Nourse LJ said that the extent of an expert witness's immunity from suit was still in course 1035 of development and would and should be developed on a case by case basis: ". . . I see no justification for distinguishing between an expert 1036 and a lay witness, either on the ground that the expert is usually remunerated for his services or on the ground that he may be less likely 1037 than a lay witness to be deterred from giving evidence. Nor would I make any distinction between civil and criminal proceedings. An 1038 immunity founded on requirement of public policy that witnesses should not be inhibited from giving frank and fearless evidence cannot 1039 afford to make distinctions such as these. If they were allowed, it would never be certain that the public policy would not sometimes be put 1040 at risk." 1041 The HL decision in David Stanley Docker 2000-08-01, is a progression of the aforementioned case, and quite relevant 1042 to many being accountable for misfeasance during the Definitive Map Order Review (Uffculme), i.e., since the 1980s.
1043 Between 1996 & 97 Mrs Parsons canvassed User Evidence Forms (UEF); many were later amended or withdrawn post 2006 1044 when those canvassed by her, realised their error or the significance & travesty that was taking place. Others canvassed held 1045 personal resentment, notably, one with an axe to grind was Mrs A Ferrier (UEF 2nd Dec 1996); — I witnessed some of the 1046 difficulties and frustration she caused at Five Fords and Brookshill Cullifords, by comparison quite remarkable because I 1047 believe many parishioners and visitors alike would have experienced, and recall the threats of violence from her parents 1048 wielding ‘bill hooks or shotguns’ in their face, when peacefully walking or riding in the vicinity of Little Thatch and Culm 1049 Davey Hill near Culmstock Beacon; her father digging a ditch across the path on the higher(western) side c1975. I am aware 1050 of the results of a recent Inquiry, Mrs Ferrier now residing at the aforesaid location.
1051 What contrasting scenarios; during the 1970s most parishioners of the surrounding area considered the Culm Davey path to 1052 be a bridleway, there was certainly signs to say so, and yet Mrs Ferrier’s claim to a private right of way over Violet Lane in 1053 her User Evidence Form (Violet Lane) is totally absurd*; her renaming ‘Rockdale’: Culliford Cottage Culmstock to ‘Priest 1054 Cottage’ because of what appears to be a combination of a mix-up of place names and spelling (Prestcots [Prescott 1055 Culmstock] & Colly Ford [Culliford Culmstock] on Christopher Greenwoods 1827 Map, and the Colly Ford Uffculme north 1056 of Bradfield several miles distant, where Rev. Bernard Byrd of Uffculme rented premisses from Henry Walrond of Bradfield 1057 Barton in the early to mid 18th century, provides the reader with understanding the dangers of heretics unlawfully conspiring 1058 to re-write history during their collusion and trespassing in stealth to affront the legal rights of others. [*No evidence seen.]
1059 Likewise Mr Hutchings (UEF 10th Sept 2007) holds contention from a landowners dispute, it appears that he requested a 1060 temporary movement of fence to permit an activity of work, but then refused to reinstate the fence to its original position 1061 afterwards; the seven years legal controversy initially involving the police took place between c1994 and c2001; it is 1062 recorded in the 1996 Land Registration documents. — Mr Hutchings not making any comment regarding signage appears 1063 significant. A moment’s foolishness can cause years of folly, but underneath the tough exterior & reputation, lies an honest 1064 man; between a rock and a hard place, Ken would not lie about signage placement as others less honourable would do; 1065 therefore he may have taken the option of silence in preference to making any unfaithful comment about signage placement.
1066 Where was Cllr/Mr Hilson’s User Evidence Form? Was he in a similar predicament to Mr Hutchings regarding signage but 1067 decided no UEF was the best path. Mrs Hilson was [honourably] quite explicit about signage recollection: “at one time there 1068 was a notice on the barn by Five Fords Farm that it was not a public right of way” this frustrated Mr Welland’s & Mrs Spurway.
Page 22 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 23 of 34
1069 Mr Millman’s evil demeanour was to invert the credibility of those legitimately seeking to defend their corporeal and 1070 incorporeal rights: — Regina v. Kellett [1976] 1 QB 372 — Is provided at the foot of this document*
1071 *When Mrs Waller sought understanding from others : re User Evidence canvassed by Mrs Parsons during 1996-97, she took 1072 a significant risk because some (like Mrs Ferrier) held malice against her. Mr & Mrs Waller have no previous conviction for 1073 bad faith, to the contrary their character credentials are unblemished, as are those of their family, and those others! The 1074 following statement is mordantly malicious libel from the propensity of a man — satisfying Wednesbury-unreasonableness: 1075 33. …I find it difficult to give credibility to statements made by the owners of Five Fords 1076 Farm, their relatives or those whose support was canvassed on this matter. I note that a 1077 number of user evidence forms were withdrawn. On the other hand I found that the oral 1078 evidence given to the inquiry by users was credible and reasonably consistent. 1079 He refused, was not interested at all, to discuss User Evidence on the occasions I sought to do so, he was tyrannical. 1080 Regina v. Fuller [1987] 1 QB 426 1081 1987, Lord Lane CJ; Criminal Practice; Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76(2) 1082 The court considered what might be oppressive behaviour by an investigating officer. Held. "oppression" must be given its ordinary 1083 dictionary meaning of "the exercise of power or authority in a burdensome, harsh, or wrongful manner, the unjust or cruel treatment of 1084 subjects, inferiors etc. or the imposition of unreasonable or unjust burdens. "Oppression" in the sub-section would be almost bound to 1085 entail some impropriety on the part of the interrogator. The ambit of section 76(2)(b) is wider than that in section 76(2)(a), so that a 1086 confession could be invalidated under that paragraph even when there had been no impropriety under the latter provision. Police and
1087 When you scrutinise discrimination38 to Mrs Waller’s right-to-remain-silent39 during the humiliation of a kangaroo court / 1088 show trial taking place, we objectively discover that not only did Mr Millman satisfy the Wednesbury test for impartiality, 1089 because of a) his refusal to hear the other side, and b) he was influenced40 by those working in conspiracy with Mr Coombs.
1090 Mr Coombs had opportunity to raise any contemporary issues of irregularity within the Parish and County Councils 1091 submissions that he may have had; granted all the ‘proofs of evidence’ provisions or statements by those seeking the Order 1092 over Violet Lane during the first Inquiry of 18th Sept 2007 were received by the Planning Inspectorate less than three weeks 1093 before the event. [But when it came to the 15th July 2008 event he appears to have been planning for the Old Dairy Path 1094 Schedule 14 Application with Mrs Rudge, and was aware of all the nonsense being conspired between Mrs Parsons & Mrs 1095 Spurway, it therefore appears thus, that he did not desire to compromise the Violet Lane fraud, he delayed his challenge.]
1096 Mr Coombs contributed to the withholding of evidence during the Violet Lane Inquiry, His provision of four pages that was 1097 read out on the day contains multiple reference to statutory Acts and legal authority (case law), was not seen by the other side 1098 prior to the event. Ditto the Parish Clerk’s backpedalling statement read out at the Inquiry contradicts his UEF of 4th April 05.
1099 Any(?) ‘quite legitimate’ challenges were thwarted because the Travelling-forum and DEFRA had orchestrated a policy of 1100 lies to achieve the illicit expropriation of Violet Lane. We have to objectively look at the mens rea & actus reus of those that 1101 have brazenly shown contempt for my belief, and that of others, in the principles of natural justice41.
38 Davis V Wansdyke District Council (Nov 2001); Lord Steyn, writing in Democracy Through Law, 2002, Page 13; Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza [2002] EWCA Civ 1533 [2003] 2 WLR 478; [2004] UKHL 30; R (Carson) v SSWP [2005] UKHL 37 39 Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare : (Wing. Max. 486.)—No one is bound to criminate himself.54/100 Not a Tribunal; nor was there a jury; Exemplary characters Regina v. Aziz; Regina v. Tosun; Regina v. Yorganci [1996] AC 41; Rex v. Edmund Garbett (1847) 1 Den 236: A man is not compellable to give evidence which might incriminate himself. Rex v. Naylor [1933] 1 KB 685; (1932) 23 Cr App R 177; The defendant's conviction was found unsafe because of the judge's adverse comments on his silence. Murray (John) v UK (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 29; No adverse inference can be drawn if the case is so complex or related to matters so long ago, that silence would be justified as no sensible immediate response was appropriate. Regina v. McGarry 1999 Crim LR 216; No inference should be drawn from silence where, in a relatively straightforward case, the suspect at the station handed in a statement, but refused to answer questions. This might not be applicable where the case became more complicated, and not all the questions could be anticipated. Luca v. Italy ECHR 2001-02-27 33354/96 [2001] ECHR 123 (2003) 36 EHRR 46 (2001) 36 EHRR 807 [2001] ECHR 124 40 Equally applicable to Mrs’ E Spurway, Y Oddy, J McEntee, A Owen; Director of Public Prosecution v. Withers [1975] AC 842 Where the intended victim of a "conspiracy to defraud" is a private individual the purpose of the conspirators must be to cause the victim economic loss by depriving him of some property or right, corporeal or incorporeal, to which he is or would or might become entitled. The intended means by which the purpose is to be achieved must be dishonest. They need not involve fraudulent misrepresentation such as is needed to constitute the civil tort of deceit. Dishonesty of any kind is enough. Where the intended victim of a "conspiracy to defraud" is a person performing public duties as distinct from a private individual it is sufficient if the purpose is to cause him to act contrary to his public duty, and the intended means of achieving this purpose are dishonest. The purpose need not involve causing economic loss to anyone.
Page 23 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 24 of 34
1102 Is there any credibility in the dark imagination of ancient encroachments deep within Mr Coombs’s mind? 1103 Let’s take a peek at the nucleus, and fathom the ignorance within Mr Coombs’s problems: 1104 From my investigating, most noticeable is the bias role that the Land Registry have had upon the events affecting the 1105 appearance of the farm ownership; events of farm’s 1st Registration & the DMR Uffculme 1995 starting―coterminous . 1106 When the farm’s LR Application process was complete in November 1996, is it coincidence that one Cllr J Gollop retired 1107 from the Parish Council? Like Cllr/Mr Hilson, he too did not provide any statement of use other than his ambiguous letter.42
1108 From reading the complete Parish Minutes re footpaths (less the chaff) with an open mind we can obtain greater 1109 understanding that Cllr Gollop was very much part of the footpath scene when FF Farm’s first Land Registry Application 1110 was made (Oct 95-Nov 96). Did the Parish Clerk of 17 years service to the UPC require Mr Gollop to check his work? Why?
1111 Despite his official retiring as Cllr in November 1996, the same month as the Farm’s 1st L R Application process had ended; 1112 Cllr/Mr Gollop’s regular input is clearly significant, the Minutes of 26th November 1996 record: 1113 “Contribution by J Gollop to Council Matters – having had to stand down at the last election due to ill health Jack still works very hard on 1114 village matters, including “shadowing” the Clerk by reading all documents Council receives which require a formal response. Both the 1115 Chairman and the Clerk wish to acknowledge his contribution formally by this entry in official Council Minutes.” 1116 Was it (his retirement) a remarkable coincidence, a culmination of lifelong desire & achievement ~ because the Land 1117 Registration process (finalised late November 96) disclaimed Violet Lane as part of Five Fords Farm? 1118 29th June 1999 page 1852 Clerk’s Report 1119 5. Letter from Jack Gollop – the clerk circulated a 16 point letter from Mr Gollop to all Councillors. He has spoken directly to the writer 1120 and invited any Councillor who wished to discuss any particular aspect in more detail to put the matter on the July Agenda 1121 27th of July 1999 page 1862 Clerk’s Report: 1122 1. Parish Guide – Cllr Ward considered a Parish Map would be a useful inclusion in the Parish Guide. 1123 3. Footbridges Leat/hams - River erosion is causing problems with the foundations of the bridge and the Clerk met Mr Phil Monk (EA) on- 1124 site on 20 July. DCC Footpaths Section and the landowners will be contacted at a joint meeting arranged so that action can be taken. 1125 9. Letter from Jack Gollop (re June meeting) – the Chairman invited comments on any specific matters: b) Parish Map – see 1 above 1126 7th of September 1999 page 1885 Clerk’s Report: 1127 1. Parish Guide – photographs have now been taken by Mrs Pollard and the Clerk. Review of copy in October. 1128 8. Culm Valley Millennium Subcommittee (Cllr Thorpe-Tracey) – the Screen Project and Railway Project were proceeding. The 1129 Cycleway has proved difficult but will be pursued. The Woodland Project was being extended in an attempt to improve footpath access and 1130 to site a granite memorial within the Wood. 1131 To recap ~ Mr Gollop’s [2nd stint] significant participation in Parish Council matters is recorded from the 27th March 1984 1132 APM’s; he was sworn in as Cllr on the 28th June 1988; retired through/due to illness around November 1996 ~ but was still 1133 contributing to Parish affairs. I am keen to endorse the good, but not the stealthy appropriations that shadow Cllr/Mr Gollop. 1134 To what degree of quantity: “shadowing” the Clerk by reading all documents Council receives which require a formal response ~ 1135 entailed, is to a lesser degree immaterial; it is the substance of the matter to hand, that is significant. 1136 Cllr/Mr Gollop had been actively involved specific to paths for the bulk of the period of stealth. And I’m only referring to 1137 what’s recorded within the Minutes (that on the surface) not from the conspiracies or in council from behind closed doors.
41 : R v Moses and Ansbro (1991) CA [Conspiracy - to defraud in public duty situation - to act contrary to his public duty] D1 and D2 agreed to obtain National Insurance numbers for immigrants not entitled to the numbers. D1 was a former employee and D2 a current employee of the DHSS. Held: D1 and D2 were guilty of conspiracy to defraud. 'Officers of the department who played a part in the processing of these applications which, on the true facts ought not to have been processed, were acting contrary to their public duty. The dictum of Lord Diplock in his speech in Scott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner ... deals with the point: "Where the intended victim of a 'conspiracy to defraud' is a person performing public duties as distinct from a private individual, it is sufficient if the purpose is to cause him to act contrary to his public duty, and the intended means of achieving this purpose, are dishonest. The purpose need not involve causing economic loss to anyone".' Guilty R v Doran 6th July 1999, Bristol Crown Court: Turner J; stayed the indictment as the conduct of HM Customs officers had struck at the rule of law. Customs had deliberately misled the judge at the first trial and the defence on two factual issues: the failure of Customs to (1) obtain the consent of hotel management when bugging hotel rooms (2) follow internal surveillance authorisation procedures. To conceal this fact the officers had allegedly created a trail of false paperwork. This meant that the defence were “deprived of a point which they were entitled to make as part of a broad attack on the character of the conduct of the investigation…. By abuse of executive authority, the prosecution, viewed as a single entity, have, by means which are at least arguably unlawful, deprived the defence of its strategic ability to mount the challenge to the integrity of the prosecution case…What has happened has had a significant impact on the ability of the defendants to defend themselves, and to that extent, and as a matter of probability, they have been seriously prejudiced in the conduct of their defence”. 42 British Railways Board v. Herrington [1972] Lord Diplock: …the court may draw adverse inferences from… [Evidential silence.]
Page 24 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 25 of 34
1138 Clearly Mr Gollop’s letter to Cllr/Mr Hilson for the Public Inquiry of 18th September 2007 is more than a little misleading? 1139 Cllr/Mr Gollop’s influence and participation on the Parish Council, is proven likely to be much greater than the substantial 1140 no of entries recorded within the Minutes. From his inclusion within the Annual Minutes of March 1984, to his devious letter 1141 to Cllr Hilson 18th July 2007, Cllr/Mr Gollop has not been an innocent bystander during the Parish Clerk’s appearance of c30 1142 years misfeasance in office, but a partner in the activity to trespass over the corporeal and incorporeal rights of others I quote: 1143 Dear Mr Hilson, 1144 Violet Lane Public Inquiry 1145 I hope that the following background information may be of interest to you. 1146 I was a Parish Councillor in the late 1940s when we were asked to look at all the existing footpaths and report upon them. We were 1147 paired off for the task. My colleague was Mr Ernest Dunbar who was I think chairman at the time. Our batch included a footpath which 1148 had run from near Five Fords Farm to near Lower Penslade Farm. 1149 Mr Dunbar drove, dropped me at one end of the footpath, and met me at the other end. 1150 There was no evidence at all that the path was being used and in view of this, and of the fact that Violet Lane is more or less parallel, we 1151 had no hesitation in recommending that the path be omitted. Incidentally Mr Dunbar had lived at Little Southdown and knew the area 1152 well. 1153 It is important to appreciate that at the time violet Lane was regularly used by walkers, that there were no barriers at any point, and that 1154 normal footwear was perfectly adequate. 1155 Best wishes, 1156 Yours sincerely, 1157 E.J. Gollop 1158 That highlighted amounts to hearsay at best, at worst, slippery trickery: 1159 In the most basic of interpretations the above letter constitutes a misrepresentation by that which remains left unsaid; 1160 misrepresentation and conduct to defraud may be proven. Half-truths – if a party makes a statement which is in fact true they may 1161 still be guilty of misrepresentation by what is left unsaid: Dimmock v Hallett 1866, & Nottingham Patent Brick & Tile Co. Ltd. v. 1162 Butler (1886). — Regina v. Lydon (1987) 85 Cr App R 221 also applies to the above letter; these authorities also apply to Ms 1163 Hellen Slade’s incongruous report of 19th October 2012, where there is no mention of the joined farming business as of 1870.
1164 The particular activities of Mr/Cllr Gollop regarding footpaths and PROW between 1984 and 1996, the planning and 1165 foundation period of stealth taints his letter of July 2007 to Cllr Hilson that he was [merely] a Cllr in the (early &) late 1940s. 1166 [Likewise] Many would not consider Mrs Parsons as your average door to door rogue trader, but the facts of her fraudulent 1167 activities in the Violet Lane sham, and Blackborough region of Uffculme against the Forestry Commission43 in Uffculme 1168 Village Hall reveals her charisma to be equally lubricious, Mrs Spurway was at her side. Both squirmed in their seats and 1169 laughed at the Forestry Commission representative’s frustration at being deceived for 8 years; when giving evidence. Mrs 1170 Rudge was present. Read the Parish Minutes, applicable to PROWs and you can see that desire was all: 1171 21st of January 1997 page 1522 Business Arising Definitive Map Review - further evidence is required for F/P No 8 and for Rats Ash 1172 Lane. Council will also receive recommendations with regard to Bridleways from Mrs Parsons of Hemyock, who is surveying the whole 1173 Culm Valley area.
1174 The undated Devon CC ‘proof’ for Violet Lane was first, dated received (Friday) 31st August 2007, its posting on the 1175 Monday(???), received by myself on the Tuesday the 4th, seems too convenient, and quite in synergy with the deceit 1176 surrounding the BHS representative’s fraudulent submission [frauds upon frauds to conceal fraud]. My challenges are well 1177 documented, as are the acknowledgements bar the provision of what I was clearly seeking: unseen evidence: 1178 Freedom of Information Act 2000; 77 Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure 1179 (1) Where— 1180 (a) a request for information has been made to a public authority, and 1181 (b) under section 1 of this Act or section 7 of the [1988 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998, the applicant would have been entitled (subject to 1182 payment of any fee) to communication of any information in accordance with that section, 1183 any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held 1184 by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the 1185 communication of which the applicant would have been entitled. 1186 (2) Subsection (1) applies to the public authority and to any person who is employed by, is an officer of, or is subject to the direction of, the 1187 public authority.
43 FPS/J1155/7/90 WL & C Act 1981 Section 53 DCC (Bridleway No.52, Blackborough, Uffculme) Inquiry of 12th July 2011
Page 25 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 26 of 34
1188 In continuance of challenging the misrepresentation of statutory evidence re Violet Lane, from December 6th 2007 onwards I 1189 made further requests for unseen evidence fundamental to Mr Millman’s report of 15th October 2007, and a fresh Inquiry but 1190 with a non bias Inspector. I raised issue that the interpretation of historical evidence by the instigators and Inspector was 1191 unacceptable. It was like communicating with a brick wall; DEFRA’s crenellations of corruption had been built many years 1192 before. Their purpose was pro horse, so they dug their spurs in. The cauldron became too hot to handle and it boiled over! 1193 Associated British Ports v. TGWU [1989] 1 WLR 939; CA 1194 Stuart-Smith LJ; Employment — The essence of the tort of wrongful interference was "deliberate and intended damage". 1195 It is perceived that Mrs A Owen’s hypocritical article in the Planning Inspectorate’s News Letter Issue 7 contains multiple 1196 misrepresentations when compared to the wilful obstruction and disclosure frauds that she conspired with Mrs Parsons and 1197 others to produce the BHS c60 page document accompanied with a letter dated exactly 4 weeks before the 15th July 2008 1198 Inquiry. 1199 The following article appears produced & published prior to my Freedom of Information requests commencing 6th Dec 2007. 1200 Planning Inspectorate Newsletter - Issue 7, December 2007 - Mrs A Owen, Rights of Way Section 1201 Inquiry and Hearing Rules for Rights of Way Orders in England. 1202 Some 10 years after they were first proposed the rules have commenced. They have seen off many lawyers, Ministers and administrative 1203 staff, and I am one of the few people still working on rights of way who can remember the very first draft back in March 1998! It’s been a 1204 long haul but the benefits the rules bring will make the process easier and quicker for everyone involved in rights of way orders. 1205 I know that, because of the different criteria and legal requirements, there are some reservations about the practicality of one set of rules for 1206 both Public Path and Definitive Map Orders. However, similar rules are successfully applied across a wide range of other work the 1207 Inspectorate does and we are confident that these rules will be workable for both types of order. Whatever people’s opinions, the rules are 1208 now in place, they are not going to go away, and it is in everyone’s interests to make them work.44 1209 The main feature of the rules is the requirement for all evidence to be submitted to a strict timetable before a hearing or inquiry opens:
Hearings Order Making Authority (OMA) statement 8 weeks from start date other parties 12 weeks from start date Inquiries OMA statement 8 weeks from start date other parties 14 weeks from start date all proofs of evidence 4 weeks before inquiry 1210 This gives parties - and Inspectors - the opportunity to see and consider all evidence, both in support of and against an order, well in 1211 advance. This is obviously beneficial bearing in mind the hearing or inquiry is not primarily the process for gathering evidence, but is the 1212 forum for the relevant evidence to be assessed and tested. 1213 It is important to note that we will not normally accept late statements or proofs of evidence and they will be returned to the sender. If, 1214 exceptionally, we allow late evidence to be admitted, the failure to comply with the rules could be seen as unreasonable behaviour, and if 1215 other parties have suffered unnecessary expense because of this and make a claim for costs, costs might be awarded against the tardy party. 1216 Timetables are also set for the Inspectorate: hearings and inquiries should be held within a certain time (inquiries within 26 weeks of the 1217 start date and hearings within 20 weeks). In addition, the rules codify the copying of documents, setting out exactly who statements need 1218 to be sent to and where and when copies of the order and other documents may be inspected and copied. We have set ourselves very tight 1219 targets to ensure documents are copied to other parties with the absolute minimum of delay. 38* 1220 The rules do not encompass procedures for written representation cases, but we have revised procedures for these to employ the same 1221 timeliness principles as the rules. This should make the written representations procedure quicker and simpler, cutting out the repetitive 1222 exchanges which have occurred up till now.45 1223 The effectiveness of the rules will be monitored and they are due to be reviewed by Defra in 5 years. Any feedback on the rules is 1224 welcomed and will be taken into consideration when the review takes place. 1225 We held a training session on the rules in Lincoln on 27 September. We invited well over 600 people and groups, but as the venue had 1226 limited capacity we needed to ensure that those who were allotted spaces were as widely representative as possible of all areas of rights of 1227 way work in England. Except for a few comments about the location, all the feedback we received was really positive. 1228 Some of the presentations given at the training can be found on our website along with a copy of our new booklet – Guidance on 1229 procedures for considering objections to Definitive Map and Public Path Orders - which explains the new rules and the procedures for 1230 written representations.
44 A conflict of opinion: regular sophistry, misrepresentation and fraud. 38* The significant bad faith/fraud contained within Mrs Owen’s letters of 28.03.2008 & 08.05.2008, in synergy with all else taking place, clearly defines wilful interference affronting natural justice. 45 No one is advised to follow this route because of the lubricity employed, accept this procedure and you sacrifice your case. Would you trust a known paedophile to babysit or run a children’s nursery? Ruthless immorality rules : whilst lies and hollow statements abound.
Page 26 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 27 of 34
1231 Annie Owen 1232 Rights of Way Section
1233 Suitability and desirability for use & purpose were influential in Mr Millman’s decision : bridleways were DEFRA’s desire. 1234 My challenge against the bias abuses: [1] Bourgoin SA v. Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food [1985] Unreported 1235 The Minister had revoked the plaintiffs' licence in order to protect English turkey producers against competition from French turkey 1236 producers, knowing that this was in breach of the UK's obligations under article 30 of the EEC treaty, that the act would and was calculated 1237 to injure the plaintiffs in their businesses, and that protecting English turkey farmers was not a purpose for the achievement of which the 1238 relevant powers were conferred upon him. 1239 Held: The court considered the tort of misfeasance in public office "I do not read any of the decisions to which I have been referred as 1240 precluding the commission of the tort of misfeasance in public office where the officer actually knew that he had no power to do that which 1241 he did, and that his act would injure the plaintiff as subsequently it does. I read the judgment in Dunlop v Woollahra Municipal Council 1242 [1982] AC 158 in the sense that malice and knowledge are alternatives. 1243 There is no sensible reason why the common law should not afford a remedy to the injured party in circumstances such as are before me. 1244 There is no sensible distinction between the case where an officer performs an act which has no power to perform with the object of 1245 injuring A (which the defendant accepts is actionable at the instance of A) and the case where an officer performs an act which he knows 1246 he has no power to perform with the object of conferring a benefit on B but which has the foreseeable and actual consequence of injury to 1247 A (which the defendant denies is actionable at the instance of A). In my judgment each case is actionable at the instance of A and, 1248 accordingly, I determine that paragraphs 23 and 36 of the amended statement of claim do disclose a cause of action." 1249 [2] Bourgoin SA v. Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food [1986] QB 716; 1986 CA ♪from above▲ 1250 Oliver LJ, Mann J; Torts - Other, Administrative 1251 The plaintiffs were French producers of turkeys. They alleged that the Minister revoked their licence to import turkeys into this country 1252 by a decision that was ultra vires and motivated by a desire to assist British turkey producers, and that this amounted to misfeasance in 1253 public office. 1254 The Minister sought to have the plea struck out on the ground that it lacked the essential averment that the Minister acted with the 1255 purpose of inflicting harm on the plaintiffs, in other words that he had 'targeted malice'. 1256 Held: It was proper to draw an inference from a party's behaviour as to their tortious intentions: 'If an act is done deliberately and with 1257 knowledge of its consequences, we do not think that the actor can sensibly say that he did not "intend" the consequences or that the act 1258 was not "aimed" at the person who, it is known, will suffer them.' 1259 The court examined the necessary ingredients of the tort of misfeasance in public office. It recognised and analysed two strands of the 1260 tort. The claim against the nominated department of state depended on proof that "the minister's motive was to further the interests of 1261 English turkey producers by keeping out the produce of French turkey producers – an act which must necessarily injure them" 1262 It was 'immaterial that one purpose was dominant and the second merely a subsidiary purpose for giving effect to the dominant purpose. 1263 If an act is done deliberately and with knowledge of its consequences, I do not think that the actor can sensibly say that he did not 1264 "intend" the consequences of the act or that the act was not "aimed" at the person who, it is known, will suffer them.' 1265 Oliver LJ: "If it be shown that the minister's motive was to further the interests of English turkey producers by keeping out the produce 1266 of French turkey producers – an act which must necessarily injure them – it seems to me entirely immaterial that the one purpose was 1267 dominant and the second merely a subsidiary purpose for giving effect to the dominant purpose. If an act is done deliberately and with 1268 knowledge of its consequences, I do not think that the actor can sensibly say that he did not "intend" the consequences or that the act was 1269 not "aimed" at the person who, it is known, will suffer them. In my judgment, the judge was right in his conclusion also on this point."
1270 Chassagnou and Others v. France (29 Apr 1999); 25088/94; (1999) 29 EHRR 615; 28331/95; [1999] ECHR 22; 28443/95 1271 A law permitted local authorities to oblige landowners to transfer hunting rights over private land to approved hunting associations. The 1272 landowners could not prevent hunting on their property. 1273 Landowners so affected were made members automatically of the hunting association so that they could now hunt over other land also 1274 subject to the same new access provision. There was also some compensation for those who thereby had lost a source of actual income. 1275 Held: The law made no provision for those wishing to prevent use of their lands for hunting. There was an interference with the right to use 1276 property and accordingly had to decide whether, in the absence of compensation for those opposed to hunting over their land, the control of 1277 use was disproportionate. 1278 "In conclusion, notwithstanding the legitimate aims of the Loi Verdeille when it was adopted, the Court considers that the result of the 1279 compulsory-transfer system which it lays down has been to place the applicants in a situation which upsets the fair balance to be struck 1280 between protection of the right of property and the requirements of the general interest. 1281 Compelling small landowners to transfer hunting rights over their land so that others can make use of them in a way which is totally 1282 incompatible with their beliefs imposes a disproportionate burden which is not justified under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol 1283 No. 1. There has therefore been a violation of that provision."
Page 27 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 28 of 34
1284 There was unjustified discrimination in that large landowners did have the right to object to their land being used in that way and so only 1285 those who had larger holdings were entitled to use their land in accordance with their conscience. European Convention on Human Rights 1286 814 1287 [♪ɈƑ Also within] …It has been established by case-law that the destruction of vermin is not hunting but an inherent part of the right of 1288 ownership or enjoyment of land (Paris Court of Appeal, 9 July 1970, D. 1971.16, note by M. B.) 1289 “♪JF in the present situation the circumstances of hunting (Sporting rights, 17th March 1336) causes a reversal, but the 1290 principle remains the same; in addition the previous known landowners having quantifiable recorded sporting passion would 1291 not have compromised the valuable and pleasurable sporting rights.” Their sporting interest in the area is well documented. 1292 Chassagnou and Others v. France (1999) ECtHR, para 112: 1293 “pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness are hallmarks of a 'democratic society'. Although individual interests must on occasion be 1294 subordinated to those of a group, democracy does not simply mean that the views of a majority must always prevail: a balance must be 1295 achieved which ensures the fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids any abuse of a dominant position”. 1296 Nor does the author directly imply the majority—he does not believe the majority of this country desires or supports 1297 oppressive acts; it is the dogmatism of scoundrels like the Travelling-forum in collusion with the likes of Mrs’ Oddy, Owen 1298 & McEntee (public servants) employed within the Planning Inspectorate who wilfully & regularly frustrate equality of arms 1299 and due process. The significant issues of evidence withholding during the Violet Lane débâcle prevented the discovery of 1300 the multiple frauds within, this has complicated my approach to providing any ‘statement of case’ regarding the current 1301 Schedule 14 Application because I am dealing with the aftermath of those I perceive from the facts, to be criminals. 1302 An excellent example that deals with the human dignity factor, by treating us, their own victims as objects, contrary to 1303 Article 1 (1) of the basic law, is the German Constitutional Court’s strike down re the Aviation Security Act; 15 Feb 2006, 1304 Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court), 59 NEUE JURISTISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT (NJW) 751, at C. II. 1305 2. b) aa) and bb) (2006). Any violation of human dignity immediately calls for the unconstitutionality of the statute or the 1306 administrative action. Mr Millman’s inverting the credibility of his victims, whilst raising the credibility of those accountable 1307 for appropriation and stealthy activity : involved in a hub & spoke conspiracy to defraud is most humiliating.
1308 There are numerous legal authorities on equality of arms early examples are abundant, and it should be unnecessary for me to 1309 expand further than these early citations: 1310 Blatch v. Archer [1774] 1 Cowp 63: Lord Mansfield, Evidence 1311 'It is certainly a maxim that all evidence is to be weighed according to proof which it was in the power of one side to have 1312 produced, and in the power of the other to have contradicted.'" 1313 Board of Education v. Rice [1911] AC 179 1314 House of Lords; Lord Loreburn LC on natural justice 1315 "… that a decision-making body should not see relevant material without giving those affected a chance to comment on it and, if 1316 they wish, to controvert it, is fundamental to the principle of law (which governs public administration as much as it does 1317 adjudication) that to act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides is 'a duty lying upon everyone who decides anything'" … 1318 Scott Paper Co v. Drayton Paper Works Ltd [1927] 44 RPC 151 1319 Clauson J; Evidence — Parties to litigation should 'be encouraged fully and frankly to put their cards on the table.' 1320 However, I have a duty to assist those that are ignorant of moral values and are accountable for illicit dealings to the 1321 detriment of others, to express what is acceptable, and that what is not in terms of statute, English & Welsh law : if that 1322 means exposure, as per my allegiance of 20th Aug 07, when justice is heinously violated ‘Ubique Quo Fas et Gloria Ducunt’ 1323 Re K (Infants) [1963] Ch 381 1324 CA, Upjohn LJ, Devlin L; Litigation Practice, Natural Justice 1325 The court discussed the need for those appearing before tribunals to be given sufficient access to all material placed before a judge: "It 1326 seems to be fundamental to any judicial inquiry that a person or other properly interested party must have the right to see all the 1327 information put before the judge, to comment on it, to challenge it and if needs be to combat it, and to try to establish by contrary evidence 1328 that it is wrong. It cannot be withheld from him in whole or in part. If it is so withheld and yet the judge takes such information into 1329 account in reaching his conclusion without disclosure to those parties who are properly and naturally vitally concerned, the proceedings 1330 cannot be described as judicial." 1331 Devlin L set out: " the fundamental principle of justice that the judge should not look at material that the parties before him have not seen." 1332 Re K (Infants) [1965] AC 201 1333 HL, Lord Devlin; Children, Administrative 1334 The House considered the propriety of a tribunal chairman seeing material not placed before the parties. Held: Lord Devlin spoke of "the 1335 fundamental principle of justice that the judge should not look at material that the parties before him have not seen", and, referring to "the 1336 ordinary principles of a judicial inquiry", he continued: "They include the rules that all justice shall be done openly and that it shall be done 1337 only after a fair hearing; and also the rule that is in point here, namely, that judgment shall be given only upon evidence that is made
Page 28 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 29 of 34
1338 known to all parties. Some of these principles are so fundamental that they must be observed by everyone who is acting judicially, whether 1339 he is sitting in a court of law or not; and these are called the principles of natural justice. The rule in point here is undoubtedly one of 1340 those." 1341 Jaspers v. Belgium [1981] 27 DR 61, ECHR; Human Rights, Criminal Practice 1342 (Commission) The duty under article 6(3) requires a prosecutor to disclose any material in its possession which might assist an accused 1343 person in exonerating himself. European Convention on Human Rights 6(3) 1344 Lamy v. Belgium [1989] ECHR5; 10444/83; (1989) 11 EHRR 529 1345 As a general rule all evidence must be produced in the presence of the accused at a public hearing with a view to adversarial argument, 1346 giving him an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question witnesses against him. 1347 R v Rotherham Justices ex Parte Brough [1991 C.O.D. 89] 1348 Withholding evidence was an abuse of process; Unfairness may arise where prosecutors deliberately manipulate procedures. 1349 Re D (Minors) (Adoption Reports: Confidentiality) [1996] AC 593; 1350 1 Sep 1995, HL, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Mustill, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead 1351 The House considered whether it was right for a tribunal to see and rely upon papers not disclosed to the parties. Lord Mustill: "a first 1352 principle of fairness that each party to a judicial process shall have an opportunity to answer by evidence and argument any adverse 1353 material which the tribunal may take into account when forming its opinion. This principle is lame if the party does not know the substance 1354 of what is said against him (or her), for what he does not know he cannot answer." and "It is a fundamental principle of fairness that a party 1355 is entitled to the disclosure of all materials which may be taken into account by the court when reaching a decision adverse to that party." 1356 Lobo Machado v. Portugal [1996] ECHR 6; 15764/89; (1996) 23 EHRR 79; 1357 20 Feb 1996 1358 One of the characteristics of a fair trial under article 6 is that the proceedings should be "adversarial". The applicant's right, in an 1359 adversarial hearing, to see and reply to material before the court: "means in principle the opportunity for the parties to a criminal or civil 1360 trial to have knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed, even by an independent member of the national 1361 legal service, with a view to influencing the Court's decision." European Convention on Human Rights 6 1362 De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium (1997) 25 EHRR 1; 19983/92; [1997] ECHR 7; 24 Feb 1997 1363 It is central to the concept of a fair trial whether civil or criminal, that a litigant was not denied the opportunity to present his case, and 1364 should enjoy equality of arms. Equality of arms is a procedural aspect: it seeks to ensure that the defendant does not suffer an unfair 1365 procedural disadvantage. European Convention on Human Rights 810 1366 Krcmar And Others v. The Czech Republic 35376/97; [2000] ECHR 98; [2000] ECHR 99 3 Mar 2000, Human Rights 1367 "The concept of a fair hearing … implies the right to adversarial proceedings, according to which the parties must have the opportunity not 1368 only to make known any evidence needed for their claims to succeed, but also to have knowledge of, and comment on, all evidence 1369 adduced or observations filed with a view to influencing the court's decision." European Convention on Human Rights 5
1370 The following authorities are useful to comprehend the deceitful provision of the BHS 60 page document exactly 4 weeks 1371 before the 15th July 2008 (2nd) sham Inquiry, because numerous requests and events dictated its provision to the other side.
1372 The Planning Inspectorate employees & travelling-forum were treating my freedom of information request foolishly46 : 1373 R .v. Maame Osei-Bonsu 22 June 2000 My freedom of information requests as of 6th & 7th December 2007* 1374 The Court of Appeal overturned a conviction: was unsafe. 1375 [*]Before trial the defence had sought disclosure from the CPS of the names and addresses of any witnesses on whom the Crown did not 1376 intend to rely upon. No details were supplied. During the trial the prosecution failed to produce notebooks (as they had been archived, 1377 but no longer available) and O.I.S logs. 1378 [*]The defence made further disclosure requests of the CPS for the evidence which they failed to produce at the Crown Court. The CPS 1379 ignored them. Lord Justice Otton observed “the information that was requested was an entirely proper request and that the information 1380 was clearly disclosable”. 1381 At the Appeal a note book was produced which Lord Justice Otton found contained “material in the notebook which was of considerable 1382 importance to the defence”. The police notebook contained details of a potential witness to the incident, prompting Lord Justice Otton 1383 to observe: 1384 ”We take a very serious view of that, particularly as the police officer told us that he found this document on his desk when he went back 1385 to the station having given evidence in court. He did not hand over to anyone in authority and it has remained in his possession since that 1386 time. This was in complete contrast to what the judge was told on the Monday morning when he wanted to know what was the position. 1387 There seems to be no excuse or proper explanation as to how that situation occurred” The conviction was unsafe, as there had been 1388 material non-disclosure of.
46 There is no tenable reason that the accompanying letter was exactly 4wks before the 2nd inquiry, as the 60p document should have been provided on or before the 20th August 2007. Commonsense tells us, we are looking at the synergy of a series of circumstantial evidence relative to stealth, inclusive of appropriation, unlawful conspiracy & collusion effecting the defending parties entitlement, Article 6.1 HRA
Page 29 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 30 of 34
1389 Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v. Blackledge and Others [2000] EWCA Civ 200 [2001] BCC 591 [2000] BCLC 167 1390 CA, 22 June 2000, Lord Justice Roch, Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Chadwick; Litigation Practice 1391 If a party to litigation behaved in such a way as make it impossible, safely to grant a judgment in his favour, or, where the behaviour 1392 amounted to an abuse of the processes of the court, the court must decline to allow that party to be heard, and to give judgment against 1393 him. Here a party had fraudulently altered documents and had suppressed others. The object of the rules of discovery was to secure a fair 1394 trial. A failure in disclosure might normally not defeat a claim, but a determined attempt to prevent a fair trial should do so: "A decision to 1395 stop the trial in those circumstances is not based on the court’s desire (or any perceived need) to punish the party concerned; rather it is a 1396 proper and necessary response where a party has shown that his object is not to have a fair trial which it is the court’s function to conduct, 1397 but to have a trial the fairness of which he has attempted (and continues to attempt) to compromise." As to pre-CPR cases: 'The old 1398 authorities are of interest only as the straws in the gale force winds of change which blew in Lord Woolf's reforms.' and 'The attempted 1399 perversion of justice is the very antithesis of parties coming before the court on an equal footing.'
1400 I was reliant on seeing the material that influenced the surreal events of 18th & 19th September 2007, surreal because I made 1401 cogent challenges regarding the (fraudulent) misrepresentation of statutory evidence by those seeking the Order; I was 1402 stonewalled with silence*, the Inspector’s disdainful bias followed; when those present (BHS, DCC & Inspector) should 1403 have produced or identified the BHS 60 page document. But they appear to have known the buffoonery that I challenged: 1404 *Brownlie v. Campbell (1880) 5 App Cas 925 1405 HL, Lord Blackburn Contract, Torts - Other 1406 Silence, where there is a duty to speak, may amount to a misrepresentation: "where there is a duty or an obligation to speak, and a man 1407 in breach of that duty or obligation holds his tongue and does not speak, and does not say the thing he was bound to say, if that was 1408 done with the intention of inducing the other party to act upon the belief that the reason why he did not speak was because he had 1409 nothing to say, I should be inclined myself to hold that that was fraud also." 1410 Smith v Land & House Property Corp. (1884) 28 Ch D 7. 1411 Where the person giving the statement was in a position to know the true facts and it can be proved that he could not reasonably have held 1412 such a view as a result, then his opinion will be treated as a statement of fact. 1413 An alternative document was produced on the following day (19th Sept) by the BHS representative Mrs Parsons―a scenario 1414 of multiple frauds was taking place and Mr Millman was in the thick of it, his bias continued. The non productivity of the 1415 aforesaid document infers its non existence at Uffculme on the 18th & 19th September 2007 when challenges were made; 1416 technically it had been withdrawn―certainly the defending parties were unaware of its existence; it was impossible to know 1417 the brazen frauds―due to the non-existence of main document. Mr Millman’s 15th October 2007 report clearly made 1418 references to information and events not seen by those defending their liberties; Mr Millman’s report contains fraudulent 1419 statements within that will deceive any unwary recipient, this brings us full circle to the regular claim that an Inspector acts:47 1420 1.13 An inquiry or a hearing is a procedure where evidence is presented by persons who are supporting and opposing an order. 1421 The procedure is organised according to the Rules and is conducted by an Inspector. The role of the Inspector is to hear all the evidence for 1422 and against confirming an order in an open, fair and impartial manner. The Inspector therefore acts in a neutral capacity; they represent the 1423 Secretary of State and must implement the published policies on rights of way matters.
1424 The events of DEFRA instigated bad faith by those serving within public office influential to PROWs is rife; this is 1425 supported by the in-depth reporting within Mr Richard Connaughton’s “The fraternity (21st July 2010)” where he identifies the 1426 fabrication and imbalanced reporting, and bad faith/bullying of DEFRA’s appointed Inspectors : Mr Peter Millman, and ex 1427 Devon County Council PROW Mrs Erica Eden (Departed Devon CC, c2003). Mr Millman is a despicable person!
1428 The reader is advised that the recorded facts regarding the Definitive Map Review (Uffculme) have illustrated that DEFRA’s 1429 role as policy/rule maker, judge & jury in their own show trial; by self administrating the fraudulent inept and bias evidence 1430 provisions of their own court jesters : the likes of Mrs’ Rudge, Spurway, Parsons and Mr Coombs : DEFRA’s henchmen & 1431 women working in synergy with their knight of the post & Grim Reaper Peter Millman is very entertaining*, despite the 1432 deplorable scenario : absolute mockery of natural justice.*But that is why my path has crossed with Mr Richard 1433 Connaughton’s; having set out to explain the bias, I came across his publication “The fraternity” whilst researching further 1434 understanding of Mr Peter Millman’s bad faith. Dorset CID appear concerned about the frauds taking place.
1435 Looking at the bad faith of those that withheld and interfered with evidence provisions inclusive of Mrs Rudge’s multiple 1436 nonsense in collusion with the Planning Inspectorate prior to the second Inquiry of 15th July 2008 we now [as of 27th June 1437 2012] see a repetitive cycle of the corruptive delays in evidence provision reminiscent of Mrs Rudge’s collusive evil as 1438 portrayed in 2007―2008. The current deadline of evidence provision by The Devon Green Lanes Group for the Old Dairy 1439 Path (FPS/J1155/7/98 UPC FP ‘old No. 1 - new No. 10’) was set by the PIB as the 18th May 2012, but because Devon CC 1440 have stated neutrality, it is therefore the ‘The Devon Green Lanes Group’ who are expected to adhere to evidence provision 1441 as if they were the Authority.
47 Planning Inspectorate Guidance, Definitive Map & Public Path Orders in England, Sept 2007, November 2008, updated July 2011
Page 30 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 31 of 34
1442 In jure non. remota causa, sed proxima, spectatur : (Bac. Max. Reg. 1.)—In law the proximate, and not the remote, cause is to 1443 be regarded.43/100 1444 It is not accepted that Uffculme Parrish Council and Devon County Council are neutral, because of the complex conspiracy 1445 to defraud that is significantly recorded since the early 1990s; their statements of neutrality are grotesque in the sense that 1446 desirability and suitability is regularly denounced, but the modern common law evidence ‘Minutes & statutes’ depict other. 1447 The main points which the Secretary of State or Inspector has to take into account when deciding orders made under the Wildlife and 1448 Countryside Act 1981 1449 The questions that will affect the decision 1450 “5.3” The only things to consider are whether or not the path exists and, if it does, its route and status. Questions such as the effects of 1451 its use on nearby properties are not relevant… 1452 1453 “5.4” To confirm an order the inspector has to be sure that the order shows and describes the public rights of way which actually exist. 1454 If it does not, he or she may modify (change) the order. 1455 1456 “5.5” In making a decision, the inspector only considers the facts of the route based on the evidence presented. He or she does not 1457 consider what the council, or anyone else, would like the situation to be. Section 53 cannot be used to change the definitive map and 1458 statement to show only the paths which people would like to have. 1459 It is unlikely to be proven in a court of law that desirability and the year 2026 do not represent the fulcrum on which 1460 DEFRA’s show trial Public Inquiries rest. The regular statements of ‘suitability is not the issue’ are misrepresentations. 1461 Johnson v. Youden [1951] KB 544 1462 Lord Goddard CJ; Crime For a charge of aiding and abetting, the defendant must be shown to have been aware of the essential elements 1463 which constituted the crime. However, that may be inferred if a defendant shuts his eyes to the obvious: "Before a person can be convicted 1464 of aiding and abetting the commission of an offence he must at least know the essential matters which constitute that offence." and "He 1465 need not actually know that an offence has been committed, because he may not know that the facts constitute an offence and ignorance of 1466 the law is not a defence. If a person knows all the facts and is assisting another person to do certain things, and it turns out that the doing of 1467 those things constitutes an offence, the person who is assisting is guilty of aiding and abetting that offence." 1468 Butler v. Board of Trade [1970] 3 All ER 593; [1970] 3 WLR 822; [1971] Ch 680 1469 Goff J; discussed the criterion for admissibility of evidence: "If one rejects the bare relevance test, as I have done, then what has to be 1470 shown prima facie is not merely that there is a bona fide and reasonably tenable charge of crime or fraud but a prima facie case that the 1471 communications in question were made in preparation for or in furtherance or as part of it." 1472 Likewise in Wiseman v Borneman (1971) we don’t have to be above average intelligence to comprehend the reason behind 1473 Lord Morris stating: "I feel bound to express my prima facie dislike of a situation in which the tribunal has before it a document (which 1474 might contain both facts and arguments) which was calculated to influence the tribunal but which has not been seen by a party who will be 1475 affected by the tribunal’s decision", but DEFRA’s policy is not a tribunal of justice, it hides a boot camp of political sociopaths’ 1476 such as the Travelling-forum partying at the expense of democracy. Uffculme Parish Council’s statement 7th July 08 is overt. 1477 Snook v. London and West Riding Investments Ltd [1967] 2 QB 786; [1967] 1 All ER 518; [1967] 2 WLR 1020 1478 CA, Diplock LJ; Contract 1479 The court considered a claim by a hire-purchase company for the return of a vehicle. The bailee said the agreement was a sham. Held: The 1480 word "sham" should only be used to describe an act or document where the parties have a common intention that the act or document is not 1481 to create the legal relations and obligations which it purports to create. 1482 Diplock LJ said: "As regards the contention of the plaintiff that the transactions between himself, Auto-Finance Ltd and the defendants 1483 were a 'sham', it is, I think, necessary to consider what, if any, legal concept is involved in the use of this popular and pejorative word. I 1484 apprehend that, if it has any meaning in law, it means acts done or documents executed by the parties to the 'sham' which are intended by 1485 them to give to third parties or to the court the appearance of creating between the parties legal rights and obligations different from the 1486 actual legal rights and obligations (if any) which the parties intend to create. But one thing I think, however, is clear in legal principle, 1487 morality and the authorities . . that for acts or documents to be a “sham”, with whatever legal consequences follow from this, all the parties 1488 thereto must have a common intention that the acts or documents are not to create the legal rights and obligations which they give the 1489 appearance of creating. No unexpressed intentions of a 'shammer' affect the rights of a party whom he deceived."
1490 The following is most useful in summing up my reasons for describing within my challenging the S of S DEFRA Mr Benn in 1491 Bath County Court 17th July 2009 re the events at Uffculme to have been a political sham: 1492 Regina v. Taylor (Michelle Ann) Regina v. Taylor (Lisa Jane) (1994) 98 Cr App R 361 1493 15 Jun 1993, CACD; Judicial Review, Criminal Practice, Media 1494 An investigating police officer had suppressed an inconsistent statement made by a highly material witness, and there was also 1495 complaint about press coverage during the trial. Held: The reporting was "unremitting, extensive, sensational, inaccurate and 1496 misleading". Though the judge had given appropriate warnings to the jury, it was impossible to say that the jury had not been 1497 influenced. A fair trial was no longer possible, and the appeal succeeded, with no re-trial being possible either.
Page 31 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 32 of 34
1498 Jasper v. The United Kingdom; Rowe and Davis v. United Kingdom; Fitt v. United Kingdom 27052/95; 28901/95; 29777/96; (2000) 1499 30 EHRR 441; [2000] ECHR 88; [2000] ECHR 89; (2000) 30 EHHR 1; (2000) 30 EHRR 480; [2000] ECHR 89; [2000] ECHR 90; [2000] 1500 ECHR 91 16 Feb 2000, Human Rights, Administrative, Criminal Practice 1501 The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest 1502 immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials. Held: The right was breached insofar as the prosecution had 1503 themselves sought to make that assessment without judicial involvement. Disclosure at a later stage on appeal was not a sufficient remedy, 1504 since the task of the appellate court was different. Nevertheless if the judge had been given some involvement, a necessary withholding 1505 could be proper. The court recognised that it was a "fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial that criminal proceedings, including the 1506 elements of such proceedings which relate to procedure, should be adversarial and that there should be equality of arms between the 1507 prosecution and defence. The right to an adversarial trial means, in a criminal case, that both prosecution and defence must be given the 1508 opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and the evidence adduced by the other party. In addition Article 1509 6(1) requires, as indeed does English law, that the prosecution authorities should disclose to the defence all material evidence in their 1510 possession for or against the accused" but "the European Court's task is to ascertain whether the decision-making procedure applied in each 1511 case complied, as far as possible, with the requirements of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms and incorporated adequate 1512 safeguards to protect the interests of the accused". European Convention on Human Rights 5 6.1 1513 R Cruickshank Limited v. The Chief Constable of Kent County Constabulary [2002] EWCA Civ 1840 1514 Held: Three Rivers established two forms of claim for public misfeasance, acts of bad faith targeted against the claimant, and acting 1515 knowingly in excess of his powers, and causing damage to the claimant.
1516 A gift to Glastonbury during the later-first-half of the 9th century by the King of Wessex, Uffculme Manor will not be 1517 forgotten easily, nor will equity forget the evil of DEFRA’s communism striking out at prior moral achievements e.g., the 1518 peoples revolt and hard fought democracy of 1688/89. What of Mr Peter Millman, DEFRA’s bias contractor, and his fellow 1519 accomplices in perpetrating injustice. 1520 Whenever the author wrote to the Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Environment, Economy & Culture; either Mr 1521 Chorlton on 6th & 8th December 2007, or his replacement Mr Chris McCarthy on the 16th August 2008 they closed their 1522 minds and had their agent Mrs Spurway act on their behalf,—when she was the material cause of complaint. The attitude of 1523 these directors to pass the buck, and allow events to continue appears to insinuate their negligent accord with the bad faith of 1524 their agent; they don’t seem to care. Vicarious liability is most applicable to Mrs Spurway and her fellow conspirators 1525 working from within the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol identified above; they occupy a nest of misfeasance and public 1526 order notoriety. A verbis legis non est recedendum : (5 Co. 118.)—From the words of the law there is not any departure.45/800
1527 Independent of the criminal conspiracy to defraud and evidence frauds, as a public authority the following apply: 1528 The Human Rights Act quoting ‘the Civil Court Practice 2000; Volume 2; Part III Special Jurisdiction of the Civil Courts’ 1529 III HUM [1405] 1530 Proceedings against public authorities Section 6 makes it unlawful for a court, tribunal or “person … whose functions of a public nature” 1531 to “act in way which is incompatible” with the rights under Convention unless UK legislation makes it impossible to do otherwise. 1532 Normally the unlawfulness will be established in proceedings by judicial review. In addition the victim of an unlawful act may bring 1533 proceedings against the authority in “the appropriate court” and rely on the unlawfulness as a defence to proceedings in any court at all: s 7. 1534 The court may grant appropriate relief against the illegality, including an award of damages: s 8. 1535 III HUM [1406] 1536 Commencement The Lord Chancellor has intimated an intention to bring the Act into force on 2 October 2000 1537 Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) makes it unlawful for the decision-maker to act in a way which is incompatible with the 1538 European Convention on Human Rights. 1539 6(1) “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations.....everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by 1540 an independent and impartial tribunal established by law...... " 1541 1542 ECHR Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998: 1543 Article 6 (the procedural right to a fair trial) 1544 Article 8 (the substantive right of respect for a person’s home) 1545 Article 14 (the prohibition of discrimination) 1546 Protocol 1 Article 1 (the substantive right of peaceful enjoyment of one’s possession which include one’s home and other land)
1547 The Wallers home is part of the 300 acres of enclosure (Park) granted by King Edward III on the 17th March 1336; they hold 1548 the 62 acres and sporting rights of the manor recorded in the 1587—1661 Portland Papers 1549 Domus sua quique est tutissimum refugium : (5 Co. 91.)—To every one, his house is his surest refuge; or, every man's house 1550 is his castle.31/100 Buckley v. The United Kingdom 1996: 1551 "'Home' is an autonomous concept which does not depend on classification under domestic law. Whether or not a particular 1552 habitation constitutes a 'home' which attracts the protection of Article 8(1) will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, 1553 the existence of sufficient and continuous links. The factor of 'unlawfulness' is relevant rather to considerations under
Page 32 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW
James Field, Violet Lane FPS/J1155/7/59, and Schedule 14 Application NATROW/J1155/529A/08/90 made 3rd July 2008 Page 33 of 34
1554 paragraph 2 of that provision of 'in accordance with law' and to the balancing exercise undertaken between the interests of the 1555 community and those of the individual in assessing the necessity of any interference".
1556 dominium a possessione cœpisse dicitur: a right is said to have its beginning from possession 1557 It has not been necessary to identify a way within a property transaction since at least 1881. We know the ownership and 1558 status of Five Fords (Farm) being the non residential manor seat of Uffculme, and the ownership after Uffculme Manor was 1559 parcelled out at the beginning of the 18th century from Madam Walrond of Bradfield Barton, to Richard Smith (recorded in 1560 his possession 1780 – 1818); James Townsend (recorded 1822 – 1832); William Nation and then James Parkhouse 1561 commencing between 1852 and 1860, passing to his niece 1901; held in trust until 1955 when Mr Sprague, the tenant at the 1562 time since 1930/31, purchased the combined estate . Why is Violet Lane not identified in the Minutes between 1944 & 2000?
1563 This document merely expresses my condemnation of the bias and frauds that have taken place, and has caused my belief 1564 that unwarranted interference and injustice has occurred. Encroachments & poaching are a hallmark of trespass on the 1565 property right of another. Having received the assistance of Land Registry in 1995-96 the Parish Clerk and his consortium of 1566 conspiracy were still being crafty; to give credit where it may be due, they would have known the normal historical 1567 documents did not afford them landowner’s dedication. Public inquiries should be about truth and justice, not oppression.
1568 It appears that they were so desperate to achieve acquiescence that they planned it; and did so with the help of others; this 1569 may appear to the reader to be a strange proposition—prognosis, but quite understandable when we consider possessory 1570 interdicts, Roman law: nec vi, nec clam, nec precario : without force, without stealth and without licence, denied them 1571 acquiescence; it appears that expropriation by prevarication was to be their only hope, so they adopted stealth; hence no one 1572 placing council signage upon Violet Lane, or witnessing the farmers placing signage upon the lane. It appears that they were 1573 hoping for Mr & Mrs Waller to cease living or retire from the farm. They certainly did everything possible to avoid their 1574 intentions coming to Mrs Waller’s attention. Do the perpetrators, Welland & Gollop believe that they are beyond the law?
1575 In due course I will write to various participants requesting them to provide missing pieces of the evidence jigsaw, in some 1576 instances the Freedom of Information Act will not apply―their response is deemed their liberty: 1577 Regina v. Kellett [1976] 1 QB 372 Mr Millman arrived at Uffculme predisposed not to hear the other side Wednesbury — 1578 CACD, Stephenson LJ; Crime unreasonable, this is untenable; he had the audacity to infer contempt* 1579 The defendant saw disparaging statements made about him by neighbours in the course of divorce proceedings. He wrote to them and 1580 asked them to withdraw the statements they had made and threatened proceedings for slander. He was charged with attempting to pervert 1581 the course of justice. Held: A threat or promise made to a witness with the intention of persuading him to alter or withhold his evidence 1582 was an attempt to pervert the course of justice, even if the threat or promise related to a lawful act or the exercise of a legal right. It was for 1583 the jury to decide whether the defendant's letter constituted a threat to bring an action with the intention of causing his neighbours not to 1584 give evidence. *The offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice would not necessarily be committed by a person who tried to 1585 persuade a false witness or even a witness believed to be false to speak the truth or to refrain from giving false evidence. However proper 1586 the end, the means must not be improper. 1587 “Perversion of the course of justice is per se an offence against the public weal. An attempt (or incitement) to pervert (or defeat) the (due) 1588 course of justice is an offence against the common law and no less than a conspiracy to pervert it was a punishable misdemeanour: Reg. v. 1589 Grimes (Note) (1968) 3 All E.R. 179, 181, per Kilner Brown J, Reg. v. Vreones (1891) 1 Q.B. 360, 367; Rex v. Greenburg (1919) 63 S.J. 1590 553; Reg. v. Andrews (1973) Q.B. 422, 425 and Reg. v Panayiotou (1973) 1 WLR 1032. Those cases show also that tampering with 1591 evidence, including a person to give false evidence or not to give evidence, for reward are instances of this common law offence, whether 1592 the evidence is to be given in criminal or in civil proceedings and whether the inducement is effective or, as in this case, not. But they were 1593 all concerned with the manufacture of false evidence or the withdrawal of a true complaint. They do not deal with the limits of the offence 1594 or indicate whether it can be committed where the evidence of the potential witness is false or may be false, or whether it can be committed 1595 where the means used are not bribery or reward but threats, or where the threats used are threats to exercise a legal right, or where the 1596 intention, or one of intentions of him who approaches the potential witness is to exercise such a right or to see that justice, is done to 1597 himself or another. 1598 It would seem repugnant to justice and to common sense if in every one of these cases the “offender” could be said to be attempting to 1599 pervert or defeat or obstruct the course or the ends of justice”.
1600 Mentiri est contra mentem ire : (3 Buls. 260.)—To lie is to go against the mind.428/800
1601 James Field declares this document of 34 pages to be a continuation of his sworn declaration* at Mowbray Woodwards of 1602 Bath (solicitors) on the 20th August 2007. 1603 29th June 2012 1604 SACRAMENTUM habet in se tres comites, veritatem, justitiam et judicium : Veritas habenda est in jurato, justitia et 1605 judicium in judice : (3 Inst. 160.)—An oath has in it three component parts, truth, justice, and judgment : truth is requisite in 1606 the party swearing, justice and judgment in the judge administering the oath.713/800
Page 33 of 34 DL666 East Park : Five Fords Barton (Farm), a working farm of heritage and culture - versus - Modification Order 2006 Content-Publishing-Copyright-restricted, not for public sale, performance or display; limited to direct usage in Definitive Map Review Uffculme only unless prior permission granted. Publication rights reserved James Field or his heirs. To be printed in colour only, no BW